Performance and time to market: accelerating cycle time with overlapping stages

Windows of opportunity and product life cycles have been shortening, placing pressure on firms to stay competitive. Many firms have responded to this pressure by setting goals of reducing new product development (NPD) cycle time and/or improving product performance, often by setting up fuzzy gates between stages, cross-functional teams, or both. This study examines the tradeoff between product performance and time to market, focusing on the effect of overlapping stages during which marketing, design, and manufacturing engineering are jointly working on performance improvement, An NPD process model comprising a design stage, a process stage, and an intermediary overlap stage representing the interaction between design and process personnel is developed. Key findings include the following. (1) Overlapping stages reduces time to market, but the marginal returns to lengthening the overlap stage yield progressively smaller improvements in time to market. (2) The longer the market window is open, the less is the pressure to rush the product to market, and product performance can be further improved by leaving the product longer in development. (3) It is better to keep the product longer in development rather than accelerate time to market if the base product performance is low. (4) If the productivity of the overlap stage is increased, it is more profitable to keep the product in development longer and boost product performance at launch than to rush the product to market quicker. (5) The greater the market power the firm possesses, the faster it should bring the product to market, as long as product performance and sustainability of market power are not substantially reduced. A set of propositions is derived from the model, and is tested in a small-scale empirical study on firms in the automobile and automotive supply industry. The results are largely supportive of the propositions. Management implications and recommendations for further research are presented.

[1]  加登 豊.  Clark, K. B. and T. Fujimoto, Product Development Performance : Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry , 1994 .

[2]  K. Srinivasan,et al.  Advantages of Time-Based New Product Development in a Fast-Cycle Industry , 1997 .

[3]  A. Murray.  A Contingency View of Porter's “Generic Strategies” , 1988 .

[4]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  New Products: The Key Factors in Success , 1990 .

[5]  Teck-Hua Ho,et al.  New product development: the performance and time-to-market tradeoff , 1996 .

[6]  Lars Trygg,et al.  Concurrent Engineering Practices in Selected Swedish Companies: A Movement or an Activity of the Few? , 1993 .

[7]  G. Lilien,et al.  The timing of competitive market entry: an exploratory study of new industrial products , 1990 .

[8]  C. Crawford.  The Hidden Costs of Accelerated Product Development , 1992 .

[9]  A. Page.  Assessing New Product Development Practices and Performance: Establishing Crucial Norms , 1993 .

[10]  David J. Miller,et al.  Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis , 1986 .

[11]  David J. Miller,et al.  Relating Porter's Business Strategies to Environment and Structure: Analysis and Performance Implications , 1988 .

[12]  David Wilemon,et al.  The Credibility–Cooperation Connection at the R&D‐Marketing Interface , 1988 .

[13]  B. J. Zirger,et al.  The effect of acceleration techniques on product development time , 1996 .

[14]  Kent Nakamoto,et al.  Competitive Strategies for Late Entry into a Market with a Dominant Brand , 1990 .

[15]  金井 壽宏.  Porter, Michael E., Competitive Strategy : Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors , 1981 .

[16]  Edward F. McDonough,et al.  The Effects of Cognitive Problem‐Solving Orientation and Technological Familiarity on Faster New Product Development , 1992 .

[17]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Product development performance : strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry / Kim B. Clark, Tahahiro Fujimoto , 1991 .

[18]  P. Wright.  A refinement of Porter's strategies , 1987 .

[19]  R. Cooper.  Perspective third-generation new product processes , 1994 .

[20]  George M. Scott.  The new age of new product development: are we there yet? , 1998 .

[21]  Daniel L. Orne,et al.  Generic manufacturing strategies: A conceptual synthesis , 1989 .

[22]  D. Wilemon,et al.  A Survey of Major Approaches for Accelerating New Product Development , 1992 .

[23]  Alfredo M. Choperena.  Fast Cycle Time—Driver of Innovation and Quality , 1996 .

[24]  Bela Gold,et al.  Approaches to accelerating product and process development , 1987 .

[25]  A. Griffin.  Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time , 1993 .

[26]  F. Johne,et al.  Success Factors in Product Innovation: A Selective Review of the Literature , 1988 .

[27]  A. Griffin.  The Effect of Project and Process Characteristics on Product Development Cycle Time , 1997 .

[28]  John A. Norton,et al.  Optimal Entry Timing for a Product Line Extension , 1989 .

[29]  Simon J. Towner.  Four ways to accelerate new product development , 1994 .

[30]  D. Wilemon,et al.  A Model for Studying R&D–Marketing Interface in the Product Innovation Process , 1986 .

[31]  Bengt Barius,et al.  Simultaneous marketing: A holistic marketing approach to shorter time to market , 1994 .

[32]  A. Griffin.  Evaluating QFD's Use in US Firms as a Process for Developing Products , 1992 .

[33]  E. Carmel.  Cycle time in packaged software firms , 1995 .

[34]  B. Zirger,et al.  A Model of New Product Development: An Empirical Test , 1990 .

[35]  P. Murmann.  Expected development time reductions in the German mechanical engineering industry , 1994 .

[36]  R. Cooper.  Third‐Generation New Product Processes , 1994 .

[37]  N. Karagozoglu,et al.  Time‐Based Management of the New Product Development Process , 1993 .