Advanced R&D for prepositioning strategies: the economics of platform shift in high technological velocity environments

This paper addresses the design of platform, and more precisely the economics of platform shift in industries with high technological velocity. A platform consists in fixing some design dimensions (such as basic components, modules or processes) to get better performance on some other dimensions (flexibility of alternative development, enhanced variety, lower costs). Platform design consists in using a stock of design rules to find the right balance between fixed parameters and to be defined parameters for a certain time period. In high technological velocity (HTV) environment this time period can become very short so that platform renewal becomes critical. Moreover in this HTV environment, the stock of design rules becomes obsolete so that platform renewal can take several forms: this can range from "adaptation" (development activity makes the optimal use of existing stock) to "anticipation" (research activity produces new design rules to prepare the development of the next platform). In this paper we propose an economic model of platform renewal to compare these strategies, depending on the technological velocity. We show where anticipation and adaptation are relevant and what is the optimal level of research compared to development. Moreover we show that an alternate strategy, called "prepositioning", based on advanced R&D (ARD) and consisting in renewing the stock of design rules for several generations, would be interesting in case of HTV. We then illustrate its insights through a case study in a typical HTV industry, semiconductor industry. This enables us to propose an explanation of complex platform renewal strategies. The article closes with managerial implications and directions for further research in platform renewal.

[1]  L. Rapping.  Learning and World War II Production Functions , 1965 .

[2]  Kosuke Ishii,et al.  Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures , 2002 .

[3]  P. Williams,et al.  Learning by Doing , 2004 .

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

[5]  M. Koyanagi,et al.  Three-Dimensional Integration Technology Based on Wafer Bonding With Vertical Buried Interconnections , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices.

[6]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Product platform design to improve commonality in custom products , 2003, J. Intell. Manuf..

[7]  Marc H. Meyer,et al.  Make Platform Innovation Drive Enterprise Growth , 2001 .

[8]  S. Sanderson,et al.  A framework for model and product family competition , 1995 .

[9]  Charles H. Fine.  Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control In The Age Of Temporary Advantage , 1998 .

[10]  K. Arrow.  The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing , 1962 .

[11]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[12]  Paul L. Joskow,et al.  The Effects of Technological Change, Experience, and Environmental Regulation on the Construction Cost of Coal-Burning Generating Units , 1985 .

[13]  Niklas Sundgren,et al.  Introducing Interface Management in New Product Family Development , 1999 .

[14]  Marc H. Meyer,et al.  Metrics for Managing Research and Development in the Context of the Product Family , 1997 .

[15]  Charles H. Fine,et al.  THE CLOCKSPEED CHRONICLES , 2000 .

[16]  James M. Utterback,et al.  The product family and the dynamics of core capability , 1992 .

[17]  Roger Jianxin Jiao,et al.  Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review , 2007, J. Intell. Manuf..

[18]  Mohanbir Sawhney,et al.  Leveraged high-variety strategies: From portfolio thinking to platform thinking , 1998 .

[19]  Saurabh Gupta,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Appropriateness and Impact of Platform-Based Product Development , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[20]  N. Rosenberg.  Why do firms do basic research (with their own money) , 1990 .

[21]  Johannes I.M. Halman,et al.  Platform driven development of product families: Linking theory with practice , 2001 .

[22]  K. Ulrich,et al.  Planning for Product Platforms , 1998 .

[23]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Product platform design: method and application , 2001 .

[24]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Strategic Decision Processes in Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of a “Living Dead” , 1987 .

[25]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Making Fast Strategic Decisions In High-Velocity Environments , 1989 .

[26]  Dhaval Dalal,et al.  Managing platform architectures and manufacturing processes for nonassembled products , 2002 .

[27]  A. Phillips,et al.  Economic Implications , 2021, The Quantum Internet.

[28]  R. Berger,et al.  Megapixel CMOS image sensor fabricated in three-dimensional integrated circuit technology , 2005, ISSCC. 2005 IEEE International Digest of Technical Papers. Solid-State Circuits Conference, 2005..

[29]  R. Verma,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to help design product platforms , 1999 .

[30]  Marc H. Meyer,et al.  The power of product platforms : building value and cost leadership , 1997 .

[31]  P. Batude,et al.  Setting up 3D sequential integration for back-illuminated CMOS image sensors with highly miniaturized pixels with low temperature fully depleted SOI transistors , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting.

[32]  Marc H. Meyer,et al.  The Power of Product Platforms , 1997 .

[33]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: four cases in the microcomputer industry , 1988 .