Adapting real options to new product development by modeling the second Toyota paradox

Uncertainty in product development projects creates significant challenges for managers who are under intense competitive pressures to increase product quality, while reducing development time and costs. Traditional wisdom dictates the early selection of a single design in order to freeze interfaces between product subsystems so that team members can work effectively in parallel, resulting in more productive product development efforts. Prior research, however, uncovered a paradoxical case. Toyota Motor Corporation achieves the fastest development times in its industry by intentionally delaying alternative selection, a strategy termed set-based development. The current work adapts real options concepts to product development management to partially explain this paradox. A formal simulation model is used to show that converging too quickly or too slowly degrades project value. Furthermore, the model demonstrates that the wisdom of set-based strategies can be explained by the application of a real options approach to product development management. Implications for managers and directions for future work are discussed.

[1]  Robert L. McDonald,et al.  Real Options and Rules of Thumb in Capital Budgeting , 2000 .

[2]  Jan Venselaar,et al.  DESIGN RULES , 1999 .

[3]  Tarek K. Abdel-Hamid,et al.  Understanding the "90% syndrome" in software project management: A simulation-based case study , 1988, J. Syst. Softw..

[4]  F. Black,et al.  The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities , 1973, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  A. Kemna Case studies on real options , 1993 .

[6]  S. Ross,et al.  Option pricing: A simplified approach☆ , 1979 .

[7]  Michel Benaroch,et al.  Option-based management of technology investment risk , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[8]  Diane M. Lander,et al.  Challenges to the practical implementation of modeling and valuing real options , 1998 .

[9]  Kenneth Cooper Naval Ship Production: A Claim Settled and a Framework Built , 1980 .

[10]  Durward K. Sobek,et al.  Toyota's Principles of Set-Based Concurrent Engineering , 1999 .

[11]  J. Sterman Business Dynamics , 2000 .

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

[13]  James E. Smith,et al.  Options in the Real World: Lessons Learned in Evaluating Oil and Gas Investments , 1999, Oper. Res..

[14]  Stuart Pugh,et al.  Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering , 1991 .

[15]  S. C. Myers,et al.  Principles of Corporate Finance - 4/E , 2002 .

[16]  Nalin Kulatilaka,et al.  Disciplined Decisions: Aligning Strategy with the Financial Markets , 1999 .

[17]  Durward Kenneth Sobek Principles that shape product development systems : a Toyota-Chrysler comparison , 1997 .

[18]  Roger Miller,et al.  The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects: Shaping Institutions, Risks, and Governance , 2001 .

[19]  Durward K. Sobek,et al.  The Second Toyota Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster , 1995 .

[20]  David N. Ford,et al.  Dynamic modeling of product development processes , 1998 .

[21]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1993 .

[22]  Nalin Kulatilaka,et al.  Real Options: Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain World , 1998 .

[23]  David N. Ford,et al.  A real options approach to valuing strategic flexibility in uncertain construction projects , 2002 .

[24]  John W. Kensinger THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROJECT AS A SET OF EXCHANGE OPTIONS , 1988 .

[25]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[26]  Richard M. Bookstaber Option pricing and strategies in investing , 1981 .

[27]  David N. Ford,et al.  Overcoming the 90% Syndrome: Iteration Management in Concurrent Development Projects , 2003, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

[28]  H. Bierman,et al.  The Capital Budgeting Decision: Economic Analysis of Investment Projects , 1981 .

[29]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty. , 1994 .

[30]  L. Trigeorgis,et al.  Project flexibility, agency, and competition : new developments in the theory and application of real options , 2000 .

[31]  Ali Yassine,et al.  Information hiding in product development: the design churn effect , 2003 .

[32]  Michael J. Garvin,et al.  Valuation techniques for infrastructure investment decisions , 2004 .

[33]  Durward K. Sobek,et al.  Involving suppliers in product development in the United States and Japan: evidence for set-based concurrent engineering , 1996 .

[34]  John D. Sterman,et al.  System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World , 2002 .

[35]  Said Boukendour,et al.  The guaranteed maximum price contract as call option , 2001 .

[36]  T. Keelin,et al.  How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[37]  J. Forrester Industrial Dynamics , 1997 .

[38]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .