Simulation of the New Product Development Process for Performance Improvement

This paper explores the linkages between key features of the new product development (NPD) process and NPD performance and suggests ways of designing the process to improve performance. Using a stochastic computer model, we examine, under varying uncertainty conditions, how the key features of overlapping and functional interaction affect the performance measures of development time and effort (total person-days for a project). Findings indicate that, first and foremost, whether or not overlapping occurs, increasing functional interaction eventually leads to a trade-off between development time and effort. Second, an "early-start-in-the-dark" approach of increasing overlapping with no functional interaction is inferior even to an "over-the-wall" approach. Third, increasing overlapping when some functional interaction exists is beneficial in low uncertainty and harmful in high uncertainty. Fourth, concurrent engineering (CE) is appropriate under low uncertainty, while a type of sequential engineering (SE), different than the "over-the-wall" approach, should be used under high uncertainty, and last, dedicated teams are suitable under high, and not low, uncertainty. We developed the model with the aid of a company and validated it against a published account of five case studies.

[1]  Børge Obel,et al.  The validity of computational models in organization science: From model realism to purpose of the model , 1995, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[2]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry , 1995 .

[3]  J. C. Sandvig,et al.  Customizing Concurrent Engineering Processes: Five Case Studies , 1996 .

[4]  YAN JIN,et al.  The virtual design team: A computational model of project organizations , 1996, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[5]  Viswanathan V Krishnan,et al.  Managing the simultaneous execution of coupled phases in concurrent product development , 1996 .

[6]  S. Scott Social identification effects in product and process development teams , 1997 .

[7]  Jukka Nihtilä R&D–Production integration in the early phases of new product development projects , 1999 .

[8]  Kathleen M. Carley Validating Computational Models , 1996 .

[9]  J. Banks,et al.  Discrete-Event System Simulation , 1995 .

[10]  Yan Jin,et al.  Simulating Project Work Processes and Organizations: Toward a Micro-Contingency Theory of Organizational Design , 1999 .

[11]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Communication and Uncertainty in Concurrent Engineering , 1998 .

[12]  Donald Gerwin,et al.  An Evaluation of Research on Integrated Product Development , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[13]  Kannan Srinivasan,et al.  New product development structures and time-to-market , 1997 .

[14]  T. Fujimoto,et al.  The Effect of “ Front-Loading ” Problem-Solving on Product Development Performance , 2000 .

[15]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Measuring the Effectiveness of Overlapping Development Activities , 1999 .

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

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

[18]  R. Cooper,et al.  Determinants of Timeliness in Product Development , 1994 .

[19]  Clifford Nass,et al.  A Trajectory for Validating Computational Emulation Models of Organizations , 1999, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[20]  Don Clausing,et al.  Total Quality Development , 1993 .

[21]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  A Model-Based Framework to Overlap Product Development Activities , 1997 .

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

[23]  Jay R. Galbraith Designing Complex Organizations , 1973 .

[24]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Performance of Coupled Product Development Activities with a Deadline , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[25]  Steven C. Wheelwright,et al.  Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality , 1992 .

[26]  Stefan H. Thomke,et al.  The Effect of 'Front-Loading' Problem-Solving on Product Development Performance , 2000 .

[27]  P. Will,et al.  Is concurrent engineering always a sensible proposition , 1995 .

[28]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  Composite forms of organization as a strategy for concurrent engineering effectiveness , 1996 .

[29]  Preston G. Smith,et al.  Developing products in half the time , 1995 .

[30]  Evan L. Porteus,et al.  Optimal Timing of Reviews in Concurrent Design for Manufacturability , 1995 .

[31]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment , 1995 .

[32]  Ali A. Yassine,et al.  A decision analytic framework for evaluating concurrent engineering , 1999 .