Threats to new product manufacturability and the effects of development team integration processes

Swink, Morgan

doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(99)00027-3

Cited by 228 publications

(221 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

210

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the presence of technology unpredictable projects (e.g. radical innovation), while some found advantages (Wasti & Liker, 1997;Song & Di Benedetto, 2008), others found no significative or negative effect (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995;Swink, 1999;Primo & Amundson, 2002 (LaBahn & Krapfel, 2000), risk and reward sharing (Ragatz et al, 1997), agreed performance measurements (Petersen et al, 2005), and supplier capability confidence.…”

Section: (B) Supplier Involvement In New Product Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the presence of technology unpredictable projects (e.g. radical innovation), while some found advantages (Wasti & Liker, 1997;Song & Di Benedetto, 2008), others found no significative or negative effect (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995;Swink, 1999;Primo & Amundson, 2002).A central starting point for the analysis is that to explain these variations in the innovation (2008) pointed out, the majority of existing research on supplier involvement remains dyadic in focus. The dyad is the smallest unit made up of two nodes (a buyer and a supplier) and the link that connects them (a buyer-supplier relationship).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Supplier-Buyer Networks and Buyer's Innovation

Ahuja

Boccardelli

D'Alise

2013

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To my family, my brother-in-law Paolo, and to Valerio with infinite gratitude for reasons they know well ACKNOWLEDGMENTSNow that I am at the end of the path of my PhD program, it is a pleasure to contemplate this important and meaningful experience. At the same time, I would like to show my gratitude for the great care and the support that I received from numerous people at different periods of time. It has been both an exacting and educational journey, and I was lucky to have had the pleasure of meeting and interacting with so many eminent professors, some of whom were members of the dissertation committee. They have made essential and precious contributions to my growth. To those people, I would like to express my deepest gratitude.First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Fontana, an outstanding figure and my point of reference even before I began the doctorate program. During the degree course and under his guidance, I was able to approach and accomplish my first thesis experiences; without him, I would never have started my PhD program. Since he encouraged me to pursue my present research path, he played a decisive role in my choice. I had the opportunity to benefit from his experience and reassuring guidance.The fulfillment of this work was made possible thanks to my very good interaction with the members of my dissertation committee.I am particularly grateful to Professor Boccardelli for several important reasons. He helped me to achieve a crucial breakthrough in my studies, and it is in large part due to him that I have achieved results. As Director of the Doctoral Program, he undertook a leading role in the orientation process. I would like to thank him for his psychological support and firm encouragement: he always expressed faith in my abilities when sometimes I was in doubt. During some crucial steps in the execution of my work, his valid intervention helped me to find solutions and persevere. His essential contributions induced me to find alternatives to some points in a lasting and fruitful exchange of ideas. He played a decisive role during the difficult starting steps when I was identifying and defining my research problem and he made the difference when suggesting how to direct my ideas towards goals. Furthermore, he helped me to define the model by turning my attention to key matters combining a pragmatic approach with the capability of seizing shades. During the final stage, he provided advice about data processing. On several occasions, he made time to answer to my questions. I also owe a debt of thanks to him for my wonderful opportunity to conduct my research for this thesis at the University of Michigan for a year. It has been an absorbing and educational experience. Professor Boccardelli has been and will remain an important point of reference.I will never be able to fully thank Professor Ahuja for having assisted me during this long period at his university. It is an honor that he agreed to be part of my dissertation committee. I owe a great debt to him for all of the opportuni...

show abstract

Section: (B) Supplier Involvement In New Product Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the presence of technology unpredictable projects (e.g. radical innovation), while some found advantages (Wasti & Liker, 1997;Song & Di Benedetto, 2008), others found no significative or negative effect (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995;Swink, 1999;Primo & Amundson, 2002).A central starting point for the analysis is that to explain these variations in the innovation (2008) pointed out, the majority of existing research on supplier involvement remains dyadic in focus. The dyad is the smallest unit made up of two nodes (a buyer and a supplier) and the link that connects them (a buyer-supplier relationship).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supplier-Buyer Networks and Buyer's Innovation

Ahuja

Boccardelli

D'Alise

2013

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…< Please insert Table 1 approximately here.> Subsequent to these reported works suggesting that ESI has some critical issues (Bidault et al, 1998;Wasti, 1997;Swink, 1999;Johnsen, 2009), the large push of academics towards the ESI in the 1980's and 1990's has become more moderated.…”

Section: Both the Harvard Auto Industry Project And Later On The Intementioning

confidence: 99%

Power assessment as a high-level partner selection criterion for new product development projects

Zolghadri

Amrani

Zouggar

et al. 2011

International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceIn New Product Development (NPD) projects, various partners may be involved at different phases and their participation can lead to either success or failure of the project. Therefore, a company that launches a NPD project has to carefully select the most appropriate partners. Currently, partner selection in supply chains is often performed according to well-known criteria such as cost or delay. However, problems could emerge in such processes due to the unavoidable power disequilibrium of the parties involved. The strongest party will sooner or later force the weaker ones to accept challenging constraints. The use of power will lead to doubtless mistrust and frustration. Therefore, the awareness of the suppliers' power before any collaboration is of upmost importance and in realistic situations it should be used as a high-level selection criterion. This paper argues that the power of partners represents a significant issue for the achievement of a coherent supplier selection strategy. A method is suggested to assess the power of partners based on its performances. The joint use of a power-based selection approach and a performance-based selection approach is illustrated at the end of the paper showing how the power consideration can help decision-makers in selecting more relevant partners

show abstract

“…Customer satisfaction, timeliness, product price, quality (Chiesa et al 1996) Sales and profit impact (Bretani and Kleinschmidt 2004) R&D/Manufacturing integration (Swink 1999;Yam et al 2004) R&D/Marketing integration (Leenders and Wierenga 2002) Speed relative to schedule (Kessler and Bierly 2002) Development time (DT), concept to customer time (CTC), total time (TT) (Griffin 1997) Speed and commitment of the NPD decisionmaking process, (Griffin and Page 1993) Average time and cost of redesign, enhancement (Chiesa et al 1996;Thomke 1997) The ability to change specs late (Thomke 1997) The possibility for lower development budget (Iansiti 1993) Cost relative to budget, competitors (Kessler and Bierly 2002) Engineering hours, cost of materials, cost of tooling (Clark and Wheelwright 1993) Current NPD performance is measured by using all the scales of the product concept effectiveness and development process effectiveness. Product concept effectiveness is measured as the average score of the constructs 'fit with market demands' and 'fit with firm competences'.…”

Section: Based Onmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successful New Product Development by Optimizing Development Process Effectiveness in Highly Regulated Sectors: The Case of the Spanish Medical Devices Sector

Pullen¹,

Cabello‐Medina²,

Weerd-Nederhof³

et al. 2011

Managing Innovation Driven Companies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid development and commercialization of new products is of vital importance for small and medium sized enterprises (SME) in regulated sectors. Due to strict regulations, competitive advantage can hardly be achieved through the effectiveness of product concepts only. If an SME in a highly regulated sector wants to excell in new product development (NPD) performance, the company should focus on the flexibility, speed, and productivity of its NPD function: i.e. the development process effectiveness. Our main research goals are first to explore if SMEs should focus on their their development process effectiveness rather than on their product concept effectiveness to achieve high NPD performance; and second, to explore whether a shared pattern in the organization of the NPD function can be recognized to affect NPD performance positively. The medical devices sector in Spain is used as an example of a highly regulated sector. A structured survey among 11 SMEs, of which 2 were studied also as in in-depth case studies, led to the following results. First of all, indeed the companies in the dataset which focused on the effectiveness of their development process, stood out in NPD performance. Further, the higher performing companies did have a number of commonalities in the organisation of their NPD function: 1) The majority of the higher performing firms had an NPD strategy characterized by a predominantly incremental project portfolio. 2) a) Successful firms with an incremental project portfolio combined this with a functional team structure b) Successful firms with a radical project portfolio combined this with a heavyweight or autonomous team structure. 3) A negative reciprocal relationship exists between formalization of the NPD processes and the climate of the NPD function, in that a formalized NPD process and an innovative climate do not seem to reinforce each other. Innovative climate combined with an informal NPD process does however contribute positively to NPD performance. This effect was stronger in combination with a radical project portfolio. The highest NPD performance was measured for companies focusing mainly on incremental innovation. It is argued that in highly regulated sectors, companies with an incremental product portfolio would benefit from employing a functional structure. Those companies who choose for a more radical project portfolio in highly regulated sectors should be aware that they are likely to excell only in the longer term by focusing on strategic flexibility. In their NPD organization, they might be well advised to combine informal innovation processes with an innovative climate. 2

show abstract

Threats to new product manufacturability and the effects of development team integration processes

Cited by 228 publications

References 76 publications

Supplier-Buyer Networks and Buyer's Innovation

Supplier-Buyer Networks and Buyer's Innovation

Power assessment as a high-level partner selection criterion for new product development projects

Successful New Product Development by Optimizing Development Process Effectiveness in Highly Regulated Sectors: The Case of the Spanish Medical Devices Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About