Samenvatting van alle verplichte artikelen van het vak 1ZM16 Management of Product Development aan de TU/e. Gegeven door prof. Langerak en dr. Alblas.
Cijfer voor het vak: 8
2. Woodruff (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage.
7. Arts (2011). Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption: a meta-analysis on driers of intention and behavior.
8. Guiltinan (1999). Launch strategy, launch tactics and demand outcomes.
1. Verhoef (2009). Understanding the marketing departments influence within the firm.
1. De Luca (2005). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: examining the different routes to product innovation performance.
2. Gourville (2006). Eager sellers, stony buyers.
3. Slater (1998). Customer-les and market-oriented.
3. Zhou (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market-based breakthrough innovations
4. Tripsas (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging.
4. Rosa (2005). Micro-level product-market dynamics: shared knowledge and its relationship to market development.
5. Coviello (2012). Creating major innovations with customers: insights from small and young technology firms.
5. Chang (2016). The effectiveness of customer participation in new product development.
5. von Hippel (2011). The age of the consumer innovator.
7. Lee (2003). New product launch strategy for network effect products
8. Hultink (1998). In search of generic launch strategies for new products.
10. Hillebrand (2011). Exploring CRM effectiveness: an institutional theory perspective.
10. Völckner (2006). Drivers of brand extension success.
11. Kumar (2016): Creating enduring customer value.
12. Wedel (2016). Marketing analytics for data-rich environments.
Samenvatting Management of Product Development 2016-2017
Meifort, A. (2015). Innovation Portfolio Management: A Synthesis and Research
Agenda. Creativity and Innovation Management. Forthcoming.
IPM: addresses the resource allocation across a firms portfolio of new product development projects consistent
with corporate strategy.
Innovation research is traditionally focused upon dealing with single NPD projects and their innovation determinants
(at the project level), but antecedents at several levels affect innovation outcomes. This paper tries to solve these
problems by taking IPM as a concept regarded from different perspectives.
IPM is there to have the best projects available at any time in the portfolio. It does so by considering the following:
The decision-making process of IPM has to cope with uncertain information about projects, changing
opportunities in the environment, and possibly conflicting strategic goals.
As innovation projects may stem from different units within the firm, the IPM process has to account for
their interdependencies while at the same time considering the unique roles of multiple decision makers and
The IPM process requires detailed coordination with two other critical processes:
o The review process of individual NPD projects, such as milestone checks.
o The corporate strategy formulation process.
Therewith the purposes of IPM are:
To turn a firms strategy with respect to NPD into action
To avoids pipeline gridlock in the NPD process, which could jeopardize sustainable firm growth.
Problems considering IPM:
The IPM process often results in information overload with low trustworthiness based on a lack of crossfunctional buy-in. About two-thirds of firms spend more time collecting, analyzing, and processing data for
IPM than actually using it; more projects and a higher complexity mean more information.
44% of firms manage more than 50 projects simultaneously; therewith limiting the speed of IPM decisions.
This is highly problematic considering cycle time is a crucial determinant of new product success
There is no uniform IPM; Optimization is suitable for routine decisions with high analytical content, but IPM
is highly specific to a firms internal and environmental conditions and, therefore, is not a routine decision.
In short IPM is there to:
Optimize; having the best projects in the portfolio; much like having a stock portfolio
Align strategy with NPD; by allocating resources to specific projects based on a firms strategy, management
links strategy formulation to implementation.
Be used as a decision-making tool that goes beyond the issue of to undertake a project: Resource allocation
decisions in IPM are challenging because not all contingencies are known, economic estimates are uncertain
and continued corrective action is crucial. -> This means its a dynamic decision making process that needs
Align several decision makers and parties on multiple levels with distinct goals and strategic considerations,
because in most firms not a single person is responsible and empowered for NPD decisions.
Cooper (2008): Perspective: The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch Process Update, Whats new, and
Stage-Gate has become a popular Idea-to-Launch system for driving new products to market. A Stage-Gate system
incorporates decision-making practices including scorecards, success criteria, self-managed gates, electronic and
virtual gates, and integration with portfolio management. This article is about what Stage-Gate is and what it is not.
A Stage-Gate process is a conceptual and operational map for moving new product projects from idea to
launch and beyond.
Each Stage consists of:
o Activities (like information gathering activities by the project team)
o Integrated analysis (of the results of the activities)
o Deliverables (result of integrated analysis, and input for the Gate)
Stages are cross-functional, and each stage costs more than the preceding one.
Each Gate consist of: (4 parameters are verified, market, technology, time, $/resources)
o Must-meet-criteria/knock-out criteria (to weed out a project) & should-meet criteria (to prioritize a
o Output: a decision, Go/Kill/Hold/Recycle.
Three stages (discovery, and the two homework phases) before serious financial commitment is made
Some frequent misinterpreted ways of the Stage-Gate process: (debunking the myths about stage-gate)
Its not a functional, phases-review process: Stages must be cross-functional, not dominated by a single
functional area. So activities can occur in parallel and not in series.
Its not a rigid, lock-step process. Its a map, so you can take detours, delete activities or whole stages, do
activities in another stage, etc. Every project is different.
Its not a linear system. Looping, iterations, overlapping is allowed.
Its not a dated, stagnant system: always transforming and changing
Its not a bureaucratic system. Objective is a systematic streamlined process
Its not Just a Back-End or Product-Delivery Process: the game is won or lost in the first few stages (front-end)
Its not a data entry scheme: software and data entry are tools, not the process
Its not the same as Project Management (micro-process, these are applied in the stages): Stage-Gate is a
Other problems and solutions within the Stage-Gate process.
Gates with no teeth: projects get never killed at gate decisions, so reach the market (and generate no profit).
A well-defined funnel is needed. Is a problem with governance process, making gates work
Hollow decisions at gate: no resources are committed
Who are the gatekeepers Not too many, and not the same persons as the project leaders. Also, for the first
gate a mid-management is enough, up to the last gate you might need the higher management to take the
decisions (and for the high-risk radical projects as well).
Gatekeepers behaving badly: not showing up, not making decision, only one person
Some companies have implemented methods such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing and have tried to
apply this methodology to the innovation process. Wrong: these methods are designed for something else
(originally to improve quality and reduce waste, respectively).
Some managers are trying to do Portfolio Management without a Stage-Gate process. However, an effective
Stage-Gate system is essential to sound portfolio management.
o An important reason is because of the tough gates, the poorer projects are eliminated early in the
process (funneling effect). Overall result is a better portfolio.
Too much bureaucracy. Having a well-defined and efficient system that speeds new products to market is the
goal, instead what happens is a cumbersome bureaucratic pricess. Pitfalls are an overkill of deliverables and
demanding much non-value-added work in the stages.
To much reliance on software as a solution
Next generation Stage-Gate. Companies have modified, adjusted and adapted the process.
Scaled the process to suit very different types and risk levels of projects. See next figure.
The Stage-Gate process has become a
flexible and adaptable process. No
activity or deliverable is mandatory:
Stage-Gate is a guide that suggests best
practices, recommended activities, and
likely deliverables. Also, the concept of
spiral or agile development is built in,
allowing project teams to move rapidly
to a finalize product design through a
series of build-test-feedback-andrevise iterations.
An efficient, lean and rapid system: A
value stream analysis is the connection of all the process steps with the goal of maximizing customer value.
At several steps the use of Voice-of-Customer, prototypes and feedback studies are applied to make a more
Integrated with Portfolio Management.
Build in a tough post launch review to instill accountability and foster a culture of continuous improvement
(three major elements: performance metrics, team accountability for results, building in learning and
Stage-Gate has also been modified to accommodate open innovation. Best performers have reinvented their
NPD process to handle the flow of ideas, intellectual property (IP), technology, and even totally developed
products into the company from external sources. See the Open Innovation Model below.
Cooper (2016) From Experience: The Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrid Model: A Promising New Approach
and a New Research Opportunity
Robert G. Cooper and Anita F. Sommer (2016)
Reported benefits of the new approach (ASGH):
More responsive to changing customer needs
Builds in voice-of-customer (VoC)
Deals with resourcing issue more direct
Reduces cycle time and is more productive
Research questions knowledge so far:
1. Can Agile be combined with traditional gating processes and work well and symbiotically
Management can be skeptical. Stage-Gate is a macro-model (top-down) to help select best projects, map out
key stages. Agile is a project management method including micro-planning tools and designed for
supporting product developers (technicians).
In IT world some success stories already. Agile methods give the stage-gate model powerful tools for
microplanning, day-to-day work control, and progress reporting. Stage-gate provides agile coordination with
other departments and planning further ahead.
2. Can such a hybrid approach work effectively in manufacturing
In IT every 2-4 weeks new releasable version, but in manufacturing this is difficult. Payoffs:
- faster response to changing product or customer requirements
- improved communication & coordination on team
- improved productivity
- better fit between the work process & methods
- higher morale on team
- improved focus on the project better prioritization
- faster releases
- better product quality
- better focus on the customer
- allows better product testing
individuals and interactions over processes and tools
working software over comprehensive documentation
customer collaboration over contract negotiation
responding to change instead of following a plan
Challenges traditional project managements need for documentation and use methods for sake of methods.
Artefacts: time-boxed sprints, daily scrums, retrospective (review) meetings
Tools: product backlog, sprint backlog, visual scrum board: a.o. burndown chart
Roles: Product Owner: responsible for project, Scrum Master: daily activities/process, Development Team
Sprint backlogs only changed at beginning of sprint, but still great flexibility.
Integrating Agile into Stage-Gate for physical products
Normally: Agile applied within some stages as a project management method. And/or only for the technical
(development) phases. More challenges in using Agile in the early stages. E.g. LEGO used it throughout whole
project. Agile beneficial in including VoC, and more flexible. Stage-Gate wasnt fitting the exploratory early stages.
Also productivity was increased because of better team communication.
Adjustments needed for physical products
What is a done sprint. Something tangible and concrete to measure progress. So building a product version, not a
working product: protocept. used to seek customer feedback and reduce technical uncertainties.
Need for a dedicated, co-located project team. Physical product development needs a cross-functional team.
Compromises need to be made.
Integrating traditional-model planning into sprint planning.
Financial and business analysis same as in traditional gating model
Product definition: a fixed nd variable element
Development plan: instead of fixed, detailed a tentative plan: development backlog: tasks to be done and
information gaps to fill in next stage
Go into the first sprint. From there, both the product and the development plan evolve over time
Agile-Stage-Gate adds most value when there is a high uncertainty and great need for experimentation and failing
fast (early VoC input). ASG manages high uncertainty through incremental product versions (protocepts), quick
learning cycles, and frequent customer involvement.
A lot of research to see if it really delivers positive results, what are the challenges and weaknesses, and how is Agile
exactly integrated in manufacturing Stage-Gate models.
Be the first to comment on this document.
1 student were before you!
Business Intelligence Design Science Methodology Entrepreneurial Finance Entrepreneurial marketing Human Aspects of Innovation Management of Organizational Change and Innovation Management of Product Development Managing teams and team performance Marketing and Innovation Multivariate Statistics Open Innovation Performance enhancement Selling New Products Service Engineering and Marketing System Dynamics Technology Entrepreneurship