Dissertation•
Project radicalness and maturity: a contingency model for the importance of enablers of technological innovation
01 Apr 2003-
About: The article was published on 2003-04-01 and is currently open access. It has received 4 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Maturity (finance) & Contingency theory.
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•
58 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: This article showed that certain types of dialogue can spur technical creativity and that coaching dialogues that support a scientist's autonomy while providing guidance can be particularly effective for staving off stammers.
9 citations
Journal Article•
1 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the success of a new product development effort hinges on 16 critical factors in five areas: senior management commitment, organizational structure and processes that support the venture, attractive new product concepts being available for development, team with appropriate staffing and resources, able to communicate effectively with management and markets, and project management able to focus on reducing uncertainties as early as possible.
Abstract: OVERVIEW:The success of a new product development effort hinges on 16 critical factors in five areas: 1) Senior management commitment, which is a key prerequisite for success; 2) Organizational structure and processes that support the venture; 3) Attractive new product concepts being available for development; 4) Venture teams with appropriate staffing and resources, able to communicate effectively with management and markets; 5) Project management able to focus on reducing uncertainties as early as possible Attention to these factors during the early stages of new product development allows managers to save significant time and money while reducing delays and risks
175 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: Cross-functional development teams are commonplace for all types of project, but are significantly more effective for the high novelty cases, and some tools in common use are considered to be of limited use.
Abstract: In this paper we review the range of formal tools and techniques available to support the new product development process, and examine the use and usefulness of these by means of a survey of 50 projects in 25 firms. For each firm, we compare routine and novel development projects, and identify the influence of project novelty on the frequency of use and perceived usefulness of a range of different tools and methods. In terms of usefulness, focus groups, partnering customers and lead users and prototyping are all considered to be more effective for high novelty projects, and segmentation least useful. Cross-functional development teams are commonplace for all types of project, but are significantly more effective for the high novelty cases. In addition, many tools rated as useful are not commonly used, and conversely some tools in common use are considered to be of limited use.
173 citations
TL;DR: Overall, it is found that formal leadership, planning and process specification, and to a lesser extent information technology use are related to project performance while the positive effects of horizontal structures are apparently balanced out by their costs.
169 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this article, the authors studied a progression of new product projects that included the Apple II, IIe, III, Lisa, Mac and Mac ; the Hewlett Packard 85, 125, 150 and Vectra; and the IBM DataMaster, PC and PCjr.
Abstract: Continuous improvement has been credited with helping companies in decreasing manufacturing costs, reducing inventory, compressing cycle time, improving quality, speeding distribution, and increasing customer satisfaction. But what is at the heart of continuous improvement? What allows a company to get better over time? Learning -- or more accurately, organizational learning. How effectively an organization learns can dictate whether it will improve, and how fast, or if it is destined to lose ground to competitors who can and do learn.Nowhere is organizational learning more critical than in new product development -- where one technological platform can lead to families of products, and learning must be transferred from one team to the next. Some companies excel at transporting knowledge between teams and then capitalizing on it, while others do not. Motorola built on its portable pager business to develop portable cellular telephones, Searle built on its technical core competency in drug research to develop NutraSweet, and Corning used its expertise in glass technology to develop optical fibers.1 Xerox, however, failed to apply its copier technology to the personal copier market until competitors were firmly entrenched, Firestone and Goodyear resisted the shift to radial tires, and Seagate waited to develop 3.5" computer disk-drives until other companies had secured an insurmountable lead.Why are some companies able to build competitive advantages by using their storehouse oforganizational knowledge while others are not? What programs can companies institute that wouldenable them to create and profit from the knowledge that they have labored to acquire? How canorganizations establish policies enabling their new product teams to draw on the firm's knowledge base augment it, and then develop the kind of technological breakthroughs that create entirely new industries?By studying a progression of new product projects that included the Apple II, IIe, III, Lisa, Mac and Mac ; the Hewlett Packard 85, 125, 150 and Vectra; and the IBM DataMaster, PC and PCjr., we learned how teams learn.3 The insights came after completing a total of 85 3/4 hours of interviews (80 hours on tape) with 70 team members: 19 IBM team members; 25 HP team members; and 26 Apple team members. Interviewees included senior company executives such as Apple's co-founder, Steve Wozniak; HP's Executive Vice President, Dick Hackborn; HP's Personal Computer Office Division General Manger, Bob Puette; and IBM's initial PC project leader, Bill Lowe in addition to managers and individual team members in manufacturing, marketing, planning and engineering (hardware, software and firmware).
163 citations
TL;DR: For many firms, entering into some form of collaborative arrangement with other organizations has become a necessary step towards improving their competitive positions as mentioned in this paper. This is particularly true of research intensive companies which frequently participate in such strategic alliances (SAs).
Abstract: For many firms, entering into some form of collaborative arrangement with other organizations has become a necessary step towards improving their competitive positions. This is particularly true of research intensive companies which frequently participate in such strategic alliances (SAs). This paper reports on the experiences of some 70 North American firms with SAs in the biotechnology industry. The sample includes small dedicated biotechnology companies (DBCs) and large organizations, such as pharmaceutical firms.
160 citations