Design Architecture and Introduction Timing for Rapidly Improving Industrial Products

Technological advances present firms in many industries with opportunities to substantially improve their product's capabilities in short periods of time. Customers who invest in these products may, however, react adversely to rapid improvements that make their previous versions obsolete by deferring their purchase. In industrial markets, there is an emerging trend of sequentially improving products designed to be upgraded in a modular fashion. We study the impact of product architecture and introduction timing on the launch of rapidly improving products. We find that by localizing performance improvements in a sequence of upgradable modules of the product, a firm can better manage the introduction of rapidly improving products. Specifically, we show that modular upgradability can reduce the need for slowing the pace of innovation or forgoing upgrade pricing. The additional flexibility in pricing and timing makes the modular, upgradable approach preferable to an integrated architecture, even in some situations where there may be distinct performance or cost-related disadvantages to pursuing the modular architecture. We differentiate between proprietary and nonproprietary approaches to modular upgradability and consider the implications for profits. Our central contribution in this paper is the innovative integration of product architecture with pricing and timing decisions for managing the introduction of rapidly improving products.

[1]  Anirudh Dhebar Durable-Goods Monopolists, Rational Consumers, and Improving Products , 1994 .

[2]  Peter S. Shaffer,et al.  Coming Attractions , 1987 .

[3]  Jan Zabojnik,et al.  The effects of learning-by-doing on product innovation by a durable good monopolist , 2005 .

[4]  Michael Waldman,et al.  Planned Obsolescence and the R & D Decision , 1996 .

[5]  Kannan Srinivasan,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Product Differentiation and Commonality in Design: Balancing Revenue and Cost Drivers , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[6]  Jeremy I. Bulow Durable-Goods Monopolists , 1982, Journal of Political Economy.

[7]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[8]  Hing-Man Leung,et al.  Intertemporal Price Discrimination , 2000 .

[9]  Laura J. Kornish Pricing for a Durable-Goods Monopolist Under Rapid Sequential Innovation , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[10]  R. Coase Durability and Monopoly , 1972, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[11]  I. Png,et al.  Market segmentation, cannibalization, and the timing of product introductions , 1992 .

[12]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  Operationalizing technology improvements in product development decision-making , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[13]  Heidrun C. Hoppe The Timing of New Technology Adoption: Theoretical Models and Empirical Evidence , 2002 .

[14]  Anirudh Dhebar,et al.  Speeding High-Tech Producer, Meet the Balking Customer , 1996 .

[15]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modular Architectures in the Marketing Process , 1999 .

[16]  K. Srinivasan,et al.  Broader product line: a necessity to achieve success? , 1990 .

[17]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity Volume 1 , 1999 .

[18]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[19]  Samuel B. Graves The time-cost tradeoff in research and development: A review , 1989 .

[20]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Holistic Customer Requirements and the Design-Select Decision , 1999 .

[21]  J. M. Villas-Boas Product Line Design for a Distribution Channel , 1998 .

[22]  C R Morris,et al.  How architecture wins technology wars. , 1993, Harvard business review.

[23]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Managing in an age of modularity. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[24]  R. Langlois,et al.  Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries , 1992 .

[25]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  Upgrades, Tradeins, and Buybacks , 1998 .

[26]  Dilip Chhajed,et al.  Commonality in product design: Cost saving, valuation change and cannibalization , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[27]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[28]  S. Rosen,et al.  Monopoly and product quality , 1978 .

[29]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Option Value of Modularity in Design: An Example From Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[30]  R. Garud,et al.  Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy , 1993 .

[31]  Juliana Hsuan Mikkola,et al.  Managing modularity of product architectures: toward an integrated theory , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[32]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Component Sharing in the Management of Product Variety: a Study of Automotive Braking Systems , 1999 .

[33]  Vish Krishnan,et al.  Designing a Family of Development-Intensive Products , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[34]  Nancy L. Stokey Learning by Doing and the Introduction of New Goods , 1988, Journal of Political Economy.

[35]  Sanjiv Erat,et al.  Introduction of New Technologies to Competing Industrial Customers , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[36]  A. Fishman,et al.  Product Innovation by a Durable-Good Monpoly , 2000 .

[37]  S. Sanderson,et al.  Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman , 1995 .