A Comprehensive Model for Technology Push Product Development

A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGY PUSH PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT Gregory Loren Bishop Department of Mechanical Engineering Master of Science Successful product development has been a fundamental part of many of today’s companies and their continued prosperity depends on continuing to develop new products in the future. There are many models of product development. The two most common classes of development are market pull (MP) and technology push (TP). TP product development differs from MP in that the development begins with a specified technology rather than a specified customer. Because TP development is generally considered more difficult and challenging, most of the product development research has focused on MP development and many researchers and practitioners favor MP development over TP development. However, successful TP development has been shown to be a source of innovation that cannot be realized through MP development and is performed by many companies. The research in this thesis focuses on developing a comprehensive TP model to guide product developers on how to implement TP development successfully. This new TP model is developed by comparing recently published TP models to published best practices of TP development and known deficiencies of TP models. The comprehensive TP model makes improvements to the existing TP models through the addition of processes and tools that overcome deficiencies and incorporate best practices. The new comprehensive TP model includes elements of existing generic MP models, a “Technology Application Selection” (TAS) process and several new processes and tools associated with prototypes and network groups. Some of the new processes and tools are demonstrated through a case example. The comprehensive TP model provides product developers with the necessary stepby-step guide to TP product development. The model effectively deals with deficiencies of previous TP models, is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed to guide product developers, is complimentary and consistent to existing design processes and terms, is applicable to most TP product development projects, and is useful and repeatable in making product development decisions.

[1]  Robert C. Megantz.  Technology Management: Developing and Implementing Effective Licensing Programs , 2002 .

[2]  Langdon Morris,et al.  Fourth Generation R&D: Managing Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation , 1999 .

[3]  John C. Tang,et al.  Technology transfer: so much research, so few good products , 1996, CACM.

[4]  J. B. Quinn,et al.  Managing Innovation: Controlled Chaos , 1985 .

[5]  Jeffrey J. Elton,et al.  Intellectual Property: Partnering for Profit; Companies Could Earn Up to 10 Percent of Their Operating Income from the Sale of Patents and Proprietary Processes. but How? , 2002 .

[6]  G. Lynn,et al.  Marketing and Discontinuous Innovation: The Probe and Learn Process , 1996 .

[7]  Dov Dvir,et al.  In search of project classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors , 1998 .

[8]  Roy Rothwell,et al.  Industrial Innovation: Success,Strategy, Trends , 1995 .

[9]  George C. Hartmann,et al.  Assessing Technology Risk–A Case Study , 1998 .

[10]  Charles G. Sigismund.  Champions of Silicon Valley: Visionary Thinking From Today's Technology Pioneers , 2000 .

[11]  Mohan V. Tatikonda,et al.  Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: a deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[12]  James Brian Quinn,et al.  Managing Innovation : Controlled Chaos : Harvard Business Review , 1987 .

[13]  Veronica Wong,et al.  Marking high-technology market evolution through the foci of market stories: the case of local area networks , 2002 .

[14]  A. Samli,et al.  A theory of successful product breakthrough management: learning from success , 2000 .

[15]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Development of a Functional Basis for Design , 2000 .

[16]  William E. Souder,et al.  Improving Productivity Through Technology Push , 1989 .

[17]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development , 2000 .

[18]  David Adamson.  Walking the High-Tech High Wire: The Technical Entrepreneur's Guide to Running a Successful Enterprise , 1993 .

[19]  Erwin Danneels.  The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences , 2002 .

[20]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The Core Competence of the Corporation , 1990 .

[21]  Rosanna Garcia,et al.  A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review , 2002 .

[22]  Jeff A. Johnson,et al.  Technology transfer: so much research, so few good products , 1996, CHI Conference Companion.

[23]  Taking Technical Risks-How Innovators, Executives, and Investors Manage High-Tech Risks , 2004 .

[24]  G. O'Connor,et al.  Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues , 2002 .

[25]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing. , 1991, Harvard business review.

[26]  W. A. Spivey,et al.  Coordinating the technology transfer and transition of information technology: a phenomenological perspective , 1997 .

[27]  R. Cooper,et al.  0 0 0 0 An Investigation into the New Product Process : Steps , Deficiencies , and Impact , 1986 .

[28]  J. Davis,et al.  Determining a Project's Probability of Success , 2001 .

[29]  R. Goldsmith.  Blockbusters: The Five Keys to Developing Great New Products , 2004 .

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

[31]  J. Rayport,et al.  Spark innovation through empathic design. , 1997, Harvard business review.