The Last Stage of Product Development: Interventions in Existing Operational Processes

Abstract

We explored two questions in two empirical studies. In the first study we wanted to find out whether we could describe the interactions between New Product Development (NPD) and Operations by using a generic theory of change management and interventions. In the second study we explored such interventions during implementation and wanted to find out to what extent these interventions followed the theories of change. Some of the interactions are interventions from NPD to Operations in order to change the work of Operations. We found that these interventions and intended changes fit the theories of change management quite well. This means that the change literature gives good insights into the causes of success and failure of these interventions and could mean that, in some respect, we can apply the knowledge of these theories of change management and interventions to the field of NPD. This insight provides a new and additional perspective: NPD to be seen as a process that uses interventions to facilitate, or provoke, change within operational processes. We see too much attention paid to the project management methods and 'hard' theories, for example rationality, control, hierarchy, planning, predicting and prescribing. There is good reason to add the more 'soft' theories of change to NPD practice, with extra and explicit attention to learning, trial and error, monitoring, tell and sell, empathy, and co-operation. NPD practitioners are also very much focused on the product and less (or not at all) on the actual changes that have to take place in production (Operations) related to the implementation of these processes. For successful implementation interventions need to be tuned towards the receiver. The interventionist (i.e. NPD practitioners) must be aware that there is a range of choice if different intervention strategies in order to tune their intervention efforts more effectively towards the receiver. In order to be able to do this, NPD practitioners, as well as the people from Operations, need to become skilled in using a generic theory of intervention and change, such as the one described in this paper, during their interactions.well as the day-to-day operational processes. The focus of this paper will be on the main stream of new products like line extensions, next versions, etc. that have to be implemented in operational processes. These dayto-day new products are not believed to be disruptive in any sense. Excluded from this research are breakthrough products. For this stream of new products the interface between NPD and Operations a vital link. In order to be effective in their innovative efforts, companies need to understand all the interactions between NPD and Operations. This is not always the case. INTERVENTIONS IN EXISTING OPERATIONAL PROCESSES109

Co‐operation in NPD: Coping with Different Learning Styles

“…And as we all know, there are easier things than changing the behaviour and attitudes of people. In a recent publication (Smulders, de Caluwé & Van Nieuwenhuizen, 2003), in which we reported some earlier findings of this study, we described the relevance of the theory on interventions and change in relation to the interactions between NPD and production. We discussed the fact that the product innovation process is punctuated with micro-interventions of one process to another process, and that these interventions purposely disrupt the status quo on the side of the receiver with the intention of changing it to another state.…”

“…We also found that these interventions and intended changes fit the theories on change management quite well. These findings make it possible to apply those theories on interventions and change during the process of product innovation (Smulders, de Caluwé & Van Nieuwenhuizen, 2003). This calls for additional skills and knowledge on the side of the interventionist as well on the side of the receiver, whether it is someone from NPD or production.…”

Project Management for New Product Development

“…However, it is worth noting that not all researchers agree with such a premise. Some suggest that NPD is too dominated by project management methodologies with its focus on planning and prescribing; instead there should be more trial and error, empathy, and cooperation (Smulders, de Caluwè, & van Nieuwenhuizen, 2003). Of course, NPD can lie anywhere on a continuum from incremental design improvement to research, where the latter is characterized by vague objectives and high epistemic uncertainty.…”

An Illustration of a Deductive Pattern Matching Procedure in Qualitative Leadership Research

“…Thirdly, management practitioners often refer to "hard" and "soft" issues that they need to deal with when managing change. There is some support for this distinction in the scholarly literature (Mathews 2009;Smulders, Caluwe, & Nieuwenhuizen 2003;Truss 1999), and it is also referred to elsewhere as the people versus techno centric elements (Lozano et al 2016), behavioural versus non-behavioural components (Mathews 2009), Theory E and Theory O (Beer & Nohria 2000) or the intangible versus tangible dimensions of change (Huy 2001). The "hard" elements include raw materials, products, organisation structure, systems and processes; while examples of the "soft" elements include organisational vision, values and culture, policies and practices, education and training and socialisation (Huy 2001;Lozano, Ceulemans, & Scarff Seatter 2015;Lozano et al 2016;Mathews 2009).…”