New product development processes within the Australian software industry

Purpose This paper aims to discuss the role of interorganizational cost management (IOCM) as a control mechanism in the new product development (NPD) process. IOCM extends target costing and kaizen costing to suppliers, turning NPD more effective and efficient. Design/methodology/approach A two-step research method was used, including the Delphi method and semi-structured interviewing. The data, both quantitative and qualitative, was obtained from a panel of 37 specialists and 7 companies from the automotive components industry. Findings IOCM is a fundamental control mechanism in NPD, turning the buyer–supplier relationship more effective and extending target and kaizen costing throughout the entire supply chain. Research limitations/implications This research was focused on IOCM practices in NPD but both can be approached from different perspectives and conceptual frameworks using additional empirical data which may corroborate or extend our conclusions. Practical implications IOCM is important for effective buyer–supplier relationships and this paper presents some of its most important approaches and tools, according to the literature and practical experience of the companies. Social implications Effective NPD processes and buyer–supplier relationships are fundamental for sustainable supply chains from a triple bottom-line perspective, that is, economic, environmental and social. Originality/value This research contributes to shedding light on cost management in NPD in general and IOCM, in particular, which asks for both rich and adequate empirical evidence and theoretical conceptualization.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conduct an empirical investigation on the new product development (NPD) practices in Indian manufacturing industries. The NPD best practices constructs are identified from the literature and then an effort have been made to statistically establish the underlying principal components of NPD practices by checking their reliability and validity for the case of Indian manufacturing industry. Design/methodology/approach – In all, 96 NPD best practices constructs are identified from literature articles published between 1998 and 2009. Principal component analysis (PCA) is conducted to establish the seven components of NPD practices. Cronbach's α values are computed to measure internal consistency or reliability of the established components of NPD practices. Further, confirmatory factor analysis is conducted on the established measurement model to test a hypothesized factor structure through construct validity, convergent validity and divergent validity. Findings – The PCA of NPD best practices identified the seven underlying components (latent variables) namely “NPD strategy,” “NPD support system,” “product portfolio management,” “NPD team,” “NPD tools,” “product launch” and “concept generation.” In NPD strategy, Indian manufacturing companies are highly inclined toward cost reduction, cycle time reduction, competitive advantage and fast follower strategies. All NPD support system constructs are information technology dependent tools which require hardware, software and databases to support it. Indian manufacturing organizations are fundamentally concentrating on right balance of portfolio through improvements in the current products, cost reduction and additions to existing lines by using modular architectures and the reliable and valid NPD tools are FMEA, six sigma/quality management, DFMA/DF’X and QFD. Originality/value – To the best of the author's knowledge, this research represents the first attempt to investigate empirically the NPD practices in Indian manufacturing industry.

Identifying the moderating influences of external environments on new product development process

New information and communication technologies are changing the way products are developed, manufactured, serviced and managed over the product’s lifecycle. Today’s smart products not only consist of their physical components, but are also endowed with intelligence. Data and the capabilities to process data into knowledge and eventually decisions have become critical components of the product itself and of the process to develop/operate the product. This paper investigates how engineers and a new functional role, data scientists, can effectively collaborate in a mixed team for new product development with data-driven features (NPD3). We focus on the concept development stage, typically the fuzziest phase of product development. In this paper, an integrated process model is explored by revisiting the traditional new product development (NPD) process model as well as the knowledge discovery and data mining (KDDM) process model. Then a case study of the development of an application-specific unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is used to examine the proposed model.

The high-tech companies in Taiwan began to improve and innovate their new product development (NPD) process since late 1980s. However, it is found that even if companies desire to strategically innovate their NPD process, for some companies, it is difficult to effectively implement it. This paper aims to explore why it is difficult in Taiwan for companies to innovate and implement their NPD processes. We use interview and questionnaire survey method to conduct our research. According to the result from our research, there is no significant difference in company size and R&D team member's educational background regarding to how much the R&D team member supports the innovation and improvement of NPD process. Aside from that, the result implies that the cost of NPD and concerns of multi-tasking in cross-functional team are the major concerns for rejecting the innovation of NPD process. The study provides implications for R&D team managers to deal with the implementation of innovating the NPD process in terms of the cost in the process and the pressure within team members.

The following case study evaluates the New Product Development (NPD) techniques utilized by Forest City Technologies, Incorporated (FCT). Through insight gathered via interviews conducted with the company's product development and materials purchasing management teams, and supported by literature, this study attempts to show how Forest City Technologies, Inc. integrates specific components into its product development process to: 1. Meet its NPD goals, and 2. Achieve better supplier and customer relationships. This study focuses on the components of: NPD models employed by FCT, early customer and supplier involvement, NPD-innovation integration techniques, demand change factors during the NPD process, and risk-mitigation strategies implemented by FCT during the NPD process. The study is segmented into three main sections: Introduction to NPD and FCT, the components of FCTs new product development process, and NPD implications on FCTs supplier and customer relationships.

The focus of this study is on exploring the risk factors affecting new product development (NPD) processes in manufacturing enterprises. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach is utilised in this research for analysing the interactions between different risk pillars, and among various risk factors within each risk pillar. The findings of this study reveal the underlying relations between various risk factors prevalent in NPD process. The ISM based integrated framework developed in this study would enable engineering managers and practitioners of NPD in understanding the inter-dependencies among the risk factors and would help them in directing their resources towards mitigating these factors occurring in NPD initiatives of their enterprises. These finding would be beneficial for identifying the driving risk factors having major impact on product development process, enabling the decision makers to make informed choices while managing NPD projects.

Since 1990, the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) has sponsored best practice research projects to identify trends in new product development (NPD) management practices and to discern which practices are associated with higher degrees of success. The objective of this ongoing research is to assist managers in determining how to improve their own product development methods and practices. This paper presents results, recommendations, and implications for NPD practice stemming from PDMA's third best practices study, which was conducted in 2003. In the eight years since the previous best practices study was conducted, firms have become slightly more conservative in the portfolio of projects, with lower percentages of the total number of projects in the new‐to‐the‐world and new‐to‐the‐firm categories. Although success rates and development efficiencies have remained stable, this more conservative approach to NPD seems to have negatively impacted the sales and profits impact of the new products that have been commercialized. As formal processes for NPD are now the norm, attention is moving to managing the multiple projects across the portfolio in a more orchestrated manner. Finally, firms are implementing a wide variety of software support tools for various aspects of NPD. NPD areas still seriously in need of improved management include idea management, project leadership and training, cross‐functional training and team communication support, and innovation support and leadership by management. In terms of aspects of NPD management that differentiate the “best from the rest,” the findings indicate that the best firms emphasize and integrate their innovation strategy across all the levels of the firm, better support their people and team communications, conduct extensive experimentation, and use numerous kinds of new methods and techniques to support NPD. All companies appear to continue to struggle with the recording of ideas and making them readily available to others in the organization, even the best. What remains unclear is whether there is a preferable approach for organizing the NPD endeavor, as no one organizational approach distinguished top NPD performers.

IntroductionMany manufacturing firms introduce service innovations to satisfy customer needs and grow their business (Gebauer, Gustafsson, & Witell, 2011; Bettencourt & Brown, 2013). For these firms, the installed base of products acts as a platform for selling services to utilize the entire life cycle of the products to increase profits (Wise & Baumgartner, 1999). On the basis of the identification of value for the customer, manufacturing firms develop new services and use different value constellations for service provision (Kowalkowski, Witell, & Gustafsson, 2013). Theoretically, these services should be developed in a state-of-the-art new service development process (Gebauer, Krempl, Fleisch, & Friedli, 2008; Kindstrom & Kowalkowski, 2009); however, what should this process look like? Previous research confirms several important hypotheses about how new product development (NPD) (Griffin, 1997) and new service development (NSD) (Menor & Roth, 2008; Edvardsson, Meiren, Schafer, & Witell, 2013) should be performed - but do these findings hold for NSD in manufacturing firms?To achieve a competitive advantage, manufacturing firms need to innovate both products and services (Gebauer, Gustafsson, & Witell, 2011). Given increasing competition, manufacturing firms are emphasizing the development of new services (Wise & Baumgartner, 1999). Using service differentiation as a competitive advantage requires the formation of new service capabilities (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990), the development of service strategies (Gebauer, 2008), and knowledge of how to organize for NSD (Fischer et al., 2010). However, our scientific knowledge on NSD in manufacturing firms relies on a few conceptual contributions (Kindstrom & Kowalkowski, 2009), case studies (Gebauer, 2007), and cross-sectional surveys (Santamaria et al., 2012). Many of these studies viewed NSD as a strategic maneuver for manufacturing firms interested in services and treat NSD rather superficially. The present study aims to provide additional knowledge about NSD in manufacturing firms summarized in a set of propositions on how to successfully develop and introduce service innovations.An empirical study was performed to investigate the validity of previous findings of NPD and NSD for NSD in manufacturing firms. A survey was performed on 791 NSD projects, including both manufacturing and service firms. The results show that NSD in manufacturing firms is treated in a step-motherly manner. Often, no special unit for NSD exists, a service development strategy is missing, and the NSD process is either not used or was adopted from the product development process. The possibility of succeeding with service innovations in manufacturing firms in the long run under such conditions seems impossible or even a certain road to failure.Theoretical FrameworkNSD in Manufacturing FirmsWindahl and Lakemond (2006) claimed that the research on NSD focuses solely on the service sector, underexposing NSD that occurs in the manufacturing industry. Moreover, most research on NSD focuses on consumer markets rather than industrial markets. However, exceptions exist, such as Atuahene?Gima (1996) who suggests that service and manufacturing firms should focus on similar factors for improving their innovation performance. De Jong and Vermeulen (2003) argued that organizing NSD is an important topic for decision makers in both service and manufacturing firms. However, a service innovation builds on a different logic than a product innovation. This fact forces manufacturing firms with a challenge to manage different innovation logics and development processes. Product innovation concentrates on changes in product characteristics, while service innovation involves changes in the delivery process and client interface (Gebauer et al., 2008). Much knowledge exists on the innovation logic for product innovations and the NPD process. Reviewing the research on NSD in manufacturing firms shows a knowledge gap on what contributes to success with service innovation in the NSD process of manufacturing firms. …

Functional foods, being one of the major food categories of the global health and wellness market, are becoming a major focus of new product development (NPD) in the food industry. The development of functional foods is more complex than traditional food New Product Development (NPD), calling for a concerted effort from researchers and NPD experts to explore and understand the functional food product development (FFPD) process in more detail. The current research in this field has reported that there is a need to evolve from a traditional NPD approach, towards an integrative and innovative approach involving cooperative networks and techniques of commercialization. However, there is little practical evidence on how much progress has been made to date. Therefore, this research was designed to investigate the food product innovation process of food manufacturing in the Asia-Pacific region (Singapore) with reference to functional foods development. Results report on a comparative account of NPD practices between registered Singapore food companies that are doing some sort of functional food development (Group 1) and those that are not (Group 2). A significant difference (P<0.05) in the aims and mode of NPD between Group 1 and Group was observed. Further it was observed that food companies in Group 1 have significantly (P<0.05) more diverse external collaborations with broad aims to collaborate, in comparison with food companies in Group 2. This is a positive step toward developing an external resource base, which is essential in developing functional foods. This attitude should be encouraged in future innovation polices as being critical to value-added food product innovations in Singapore. Apart from these differences, food companies are still pursuing a traditional NPD approach (independent and closed NPD); with loose Intellectual Property protection practices irrespective of type of innovation activity. There is a need to create awareness among the stakeholders about the factors needed for developing unique and inimitable resources, and dynamic capabilities in food manufacturing.Â

The use of transformer‐based language models in artificial intelligence (AI) has increased adoption in various industries and led to significant productivity advancements in business operations. This article explores how these models can be used to augment human innovation teams in the new product development process, allowing for larger problem and solution spaces to be explored and ultimately leading to higher innovation performance. The article proposes the use of the AI‐augmented double diamond framework to structure the exploration of how these models can assist in new product development (NPD) tasks, such as text summarization, sentiment analysis, and idea generation. It also discusses the limitations of the technology and the potential impact of AI on established practices in NPD. The article establishes a research agenda for exploring the use of language models in this area and the role of humans in hybrid innovation teams. (Note: Following the idea of this article, GPT‐3 alone generated this abstract. Only minor formatting edits were performed by humans.)

This paper aims to empirically study the management and activities of industrial design (ID) outsourcing in new product development (NPD) process in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The research uses a multi-case study methodology. Data were collected from six companies in various sectors. The study shows external ID is urgently needed in SMEs, it can effectively support the NPD process and promote innovation. The introduction and roles of design expertise diverse in different firms, few are involved in the early phases of NPD. And the interaction and communication between ID firms and SMEs in NPD are still at a relatively low level. It is implicated that SMEs should pay more attention to integrate outsourced industrial design as an innovation input in the NPD process to explore consumer and market. A mechanism with teamwork, collaboration of different staffs, and face-to-face communication is efficient for a successful design interaction.

PurposeThe objective of this research was to compare the behavior of two methods of managing an engineering change request (ECR) process, namely, perform changes as they occur or in a batch.Design/methodology/approachThis comparison was accomplished by creating a computer model of a new product development (NPD) process and simulating ECR management. The model connects process design and process characteristics (teamwork, parallel activities) to process outcomes (development time, effort). The first method executes the ECR promptly and the rework is done as soon as the ECR is initiated. In the second method, ECRs are batched; in other words, a number of them are accumulated, and processing of the ECRs takes place when a batch of a certain size has accumulated. Thus, the change requests are grouped into a batch, and then, the section(s) of the process to effect the change(s) is (are) reworked.FindingsBatching ECRs was found to be superior to doing them one at a time.Research limitations/implicationsFuture work should focus on refining the computer model and differentiating ECRs by assigning priorities to incoming ECRs.Practical implicationsFor product development managers, processing ECRs in batches is preferable than attending to them on an individual basis. Nevertheless, in some situations ECRs require immediate attention. A mechanism will always be needed to deal with situations directly. Also, in terms of batching, ECRs could be processed in groups on a periodic basis. Periodically performing ECRs due to new design versions or prototypes in a timely manner is a good compromise between a random batch mode and doing them individually.Originality/valueThe paper shows that batch processing is superior to executing ECRs promptly as they are received. This result has been shown through the use of a computer model of NPD. To the authors' knowledge, no other studies have used computer modeling to study this problem.

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to investigate, in detail, an unsuccessful food development project that took place in 2008-2010. The case is studied from the viewpoint of an interpretive paradigm. This article concentrates on constructing the critical elements that led to a food development project failure. The plan was to have a traditional Finnish dish updated and introduced as a mass produced high-end convenience food. The project included new convenience food development, packaging design, consumer market research and a sensory study to back up the food product development on behalf of a newly established company. Theoretical grounds for the case are based on the new product development (NPD) research process in the food sector. Design/methodology/approach – The method applied is an explorative single within-case study. The research data were mainly obtained from qualitative materials that ranged from marketing plans to case study field notes compiled by the researchers. Quantitative data were also obtained from various types of materials but to a lesser extent. Findings – The results of the study show that the failure of new product development was connected to the factors identified in classic NPD research. In addition, five phenomena that contributed to product development failure were constructed: path-dependency; “information condensations”; the illusion of mutual knowledge and understanding; practices of problem definition; and window-of-opportunity effects. The results are presented in a form of analytical generalisation that can be applied, with certain restrictions, to other contexts for new food product development. Originality/value – Failure rates of NPD have remained the same for the last 30 years in the food sector. Failed NPD projects can be valuable assets for the food industry when properly analysed. Examination of successful NPD projects has provided valuable lists of success factors, but knowledge on phenomena having an effect on NPD failure is needed.

Lean concepts are routinely used in manufacturing but are still relatively new to New Product Development (NPD) process. If manufacturing can be modeled as flow of material, an analogous model for NPD process would be flow of information. This paper addresses the issue of eliminating wastes in new product development process by bringing lean concepts through an assessment system. The paper first defines wastes in the context of NPD process. A large number of waste drivers which add to wastes in any NPD process are identified. Similarly lean enablers and lean tools which if implemented can reduce wastes are also identified. A model connecting wastes and lean enables is arrived which gives a holistic picture of relationship to address and assess wastes in any NPD process. In order to measure the effectiveness of NPD process five lean performance measures are used which include design cost overrun, product cost overrun, schedule overrun, knowledge capture and customer satisfaction. Industrial inputs are used to arrive at assessment system proposed in this work and a further feedback from industry is used to enrich the assessment system after it is developed. Though the proposed system is developed for machine tool development process, it is generic in nature and can be used to assess any new product development activity.KeywordsNew product developmentLean product developmentLeanness assessment