Technology Selection and Commitment in New Product Development: The Role of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility

Selecting the right technologies to incorporate in new products is a particularly challenging aspect of new product definition and development. While newer advanced technologies may offer improved performance, they also make the product development process more risky and challenging. In this paper, we focus on the problem of technology selection and commitment under uncertainty, a major challenge to firms in turbulent environments. We argue that the "pizza-bin" approach of rejecting prospective technologies outright may not serve firms well when the pressure to differentiate products is enormous. After motivating the challenges and decisions facing firms using a real-life application from Dell Computer Corporation, we formulate a mathematical model of a firm that must define its products in the presence of technology uncertainty. Specifically, the firm faces two options: (i) aproven technology that is known to be viable and (ii) aprospective technology that offers superior price to performance results but whose viability is not a fully certain outcome. To minimize the impact of technology uncertainty, we consider two approaches to design flexibility, termedparallel path andsufficient design, which allow the firm to concurrently develop its products while the technology is being validated. Our analysis helps understand appropriateness of the different flexible design approaches. We illustrate our model with the Dell portable computer example and note the managerial implications of our analysis.

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

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

[3]  David W. Beach,et al.  Integrated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing , 1997 .

[4]  M. Iansiti Shooting the Rapids: Managing Product Development in Turbulent Environments , 1995 .

[5]  V. Mahajan,et al.  Managing New Product Definition in Highly Dynamic Environments , 1998 .

[6]  John Preston,et al.  Winning at New Products , 1988 .

[7]  K. McCardle Information Acquisition and the Adoption of New Technology , 1985 .

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

[9]  Stefan H. Thomke,et al.  Product Development at Dell Computer Corporation , 1998 .

[10]  Haim Levy,et al.  A Model of the Parallel Team Strategy in Product Development , 1980 .

[11]  Samuel B. Graves The time-cost tradeoff in research and development: A review , 1989 .

[12]  D. Mowery,et al.  Managing Product Definition in High-Technology Industries: A Pilot Study , 1994 .

[13]  Gurumurthy Kalyanaram,et al.  Deliberate Product Definition: Customizing the Product Definition Process , 1997 .

[14]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Decision Theory , 1996 .

[15]  Steven C. Wheelwright,et al.  Managing New Product and Process Development , 1993 .

[16]  Daniel M. Ennis,et al.  Winning at new products by R.G. Cooper , 1986 .

[17]  Stefan H. Thomke,et al.  The Role of Flexibility in the Development of New Products , 1997 .

[18]  R. Nelson Uncertainty, Learning, and the Economics of Parallel Research and Development Efforts , 1961 .