Transforming innovation concepts into an outcome ph d_v_basile

Seconda Università degli studi di Napoli

Facoltà di Economia

Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca in

Imprenditorialità ed Innovazione

“Transforming innovation concepts into

an outcome”: Analysis of New Product

Development process case studies in

ICT Industry

Student: Vincenzo Basile

Tutor Prof. F. Izzo

XXV Ciclo - Settore scientifico disciplinare SECS-P/08 – 2010/2012

2Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca in Imprenditorialità ed Innovazione – Vincenzo Basile

1 Introduction - Research Objectives

2 Literature Review

3 Methodology

4 Case Studies

5 Cross Case Synthesis & Findings

6 Conclusions

Contents


Many companies struggle to obtain the desired outco mes in the innovation process

Source: The Global Innovation 1000 - Why Culture Is Key, Booz&co

1 Introduction – Innovation importance

To maintain consistent and effective competitive ad vantages a firm should know how to adopt and use a structured innovation processes

2010 Top Innovators Key Findings

A. There is no statistically significant relationship

between financial performance and innovation

spending , in terms of either total R&D dollars or R&D

as a percentage of revenues*.

B. The BCG Innovation survey (2005) states that over

half the respondents reported their company as being

weak or very weak in bringing innovations to

fruition, or realizing the value contained within

innovation

1

2

3

4

Innovation Ranking

R&D Spending Ranking

70th

34th

86th

32th


Focus of this study is to gain insight into the activities leading to s uccessful new products, developing an understanding of the succes s factors characterizing the process and recognizing how the practical stages enable the transformation of a product innovation into a concrete outcome - Chapter 1

1 Research Objectives – Goals of the study

� Modeling the path of innovation , in particular the NPD process , through the

event sequence from inception to completion or abandonmen t, identifying

any patterns or common practices that typify and identify the management of

transforming innovation.

� Determining any patterns and practices associated with successful, value-creating outcomes in the NPD process in the ICT ind ustry , with special focus on:

– the idea generation process

– the NPD business process, conceived as a high level overview of the NPD process involving the whole company to get the product to the market

NPD process

Successfulpatterns

and practices

Introduction - Chapter 1


Literature Review - Chapter 2 Methodology - Chapter 3

Case Studies and significant findings - Chapter 4/5

� What is meant by innovation ?

� Which forms of innovation have been identified?

� How is NPD process developed?

� Which supports and barriers to implement

NPD innovations literature pinpoints?

� Which type of research analysis has been utilized?

� How the research analysis has been performed?

� Which NPD business processes have been identified?

� Which supports and barriers have been identified in the companies?

� Which commonalities and differences have been identified in the case studies?

The following questions will be addressed in the ne xt sections

1 Research Objectives – Question addressed

AddressedQuestions

Conclusions - Chapter 6



2 Literature Review

3 Methodology

4 Case Studies


6 Conclusions

Contents


Three main areas of study have been objective of in vestigation through literature

Innovation New Product Development (NPD)Methodology of research

� Christensen, C. introduced the idea of disruptive technologies and disruptive innovation to a generation of managers (The Innovator's Dilemma, 1997)

� Hansen, M. & Birkinshaw J. introduced the innovation value chain concept (The Innovation Value Chain, 2007. Harvard Business Review)

� Drucker, P., Tidd J. and Bessant J. for their work on innovation and entrepreneurship (Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1987 & 2007)

� Porter M . famed for its core competency on competitiveness and company strategy (The Competitive Advantage of Nations, 1990)

� Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. for their work on organizational core competencies (Competing for the future, 1994)

� Cooper, R.G. & Edgett, S. as the world’s foremost experts in the field of product innovation (Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products, 1990; Portfolio management for new products, 2002)

� Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. for their work on different approaches on the management of new product development (The new new product development game, 1986)

� Trott, P. as author of a book on innovation management and new product development (Innovation management and new product development, 2008)

� Schilling, M. A., & Hill, C. W. for their contribution on the new product development process (Managing the new product development process: strategic imperatives, 1998)

� Yin, R. K. for its comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of the case study method -- from problem definition and design to data analysis and reporting (Case Study Research - Design And Methods, 1984; Applications of case study research: Applied social research methods series, 1993)

� Stake, R. E. for its studies on case study research and qualitative data analysis (Qualitative case studies, 2005)

� George, A. L., & Bennett, A. for their research programmes on the use of case studies to build and test theories in social sciences (Case studies and theory development in the social sciences, 2007)

� Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M.for their articles on case research strategy and qualitative methods (The case research strategy in studies of information systems, 1987)

� Baxter, P., & Jack, S. for their article on study design and implementation of qualitative case studies (Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers, 2008)

2 Literature Review – Areas of investigation

Scope of Research

Reference Framework – Main Authors


Innovation meaning and forms have been extensively explored

Source: Schilling, M. A., & Hill, C. W. (1998). Managing the new product development process: strategic imperatives

2 Literature Review – Definition of Innovation

Innovation Forms

Innovation Definition

“Innovation can be defined as a process that provide s added value and a degree of novelty to the organization and its suppliers and customers through the development of new procedures, solutions,

products and services as well as new methods of com mercialization ”

(McFadzean, O’Loughlin & Shaw; 2005).

IncrementalInnovation

Radical Innovation

Services

Degree of Tangibility

Degree of Customer Contact

Processes

Product

According to degree of tangibility and the degree of customer contact

According to innovation impact


Formal new product processes involving new ways to manage, control and measure new product programs have been extensively discusse d in literature

2 Literature Review – NPD process in literature

New Product Process : a formal blueprint, roadmap, template or thought process for driving a new product project from the idea stage through to market launch and beyond.

The first generation NPD Process Stage-Gate Systems1 2

� Developed by NASA in the 1960s, the PPP (phased project planning ), today often called Phased Review Process, is an elaborate and detailed scheme for working with contractors and suppliers on various space projects

� PPP broke development into discrete phases : funding for the next phase was conditional to the fact that certain prerequisites had been met

� Methodology designed to ensure that the project was proceeding as it should

� Designed to deal solely with technical risks and not on the entire process from idea to launch

� Stage-gate systems recognized that product innovation is a process

� Applied process-management methodologies to the innovation process

� The process is sub divided into a number of stages or work stations. Between each work station or stage, there is a quality control checkpoint or gate

� A set of deliverables is specified for each gate , as is a set of quality criteria that the product must pass before moving to the next work station

� Information about the new product becomes better and better, so risk is managed.

Source: Cooper, R. (1994) Third-generation new product processes


Standard stage gate system may be used as point of departure for custom processes

2 Literature Review – Stage Gate model

Initial Screen

Second Screen

Decision on Business Case

Post-Development

Review

Pre-Commercialization Business Analysis

Preliminary Assessment

Detailed Investigation (Business Case)

DevelopmentTesting & Validation

Full Production & Market Launch

Stages

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Gates

Post Implementation

Review

Initial Screen & Preliminary Assessment

Second Screen & Detailed Investigation

Business Case & Development

Post dev. Review & Testing and Validation

Business Analysis & Market Launch

1 2 3 4 5

� First decision to commit resources to the project

� Strategic assessment of the opportunity (market value, technical feasibility etc.)

� Financial criteria are not part of this first screen

� The stage prior to heavy spending

� Includes market research, competitive analysis and concept testing

� A detailed technical appraisal must focus on the "do-ability" of the project

� The results of the financial analysis are an important part of this screen

� A number of key items must be agreed such as target market, product concept and positioning

� Outcome is the product development

� Check on continued attractiveness of the product and project

� Tests the entire viability of the project: the product itself; the production process; customer acceptance; and the economics of the project

� This final gate opens the door to full commercialization: financial projections play a key decisional role

� Passed the gate it involves implementation of both the mktg and the operations plan

Stage-Gate Systems Model

Source: Cooper, R. (1994) Third-generation new product processes

Idea


The effectiveness and efficiency of the new product development depends on five strategic issues to be addressed

2 Literature Review – NPD Strategic issues

Organizational Context

Teams

ToolsTechnology

Strategy

Process

Successful NPD Outcome

Innovation Management

Identify, develop, and nurture those technologies that will be crucial for the long run competitive position of the company

Develop a context aimed at reducing innovation production cycle time and achieving a fit between customer requirements and new product

Focusing on the right process solutions through:• Appropriate project valuation

mechanisms• Development of process schemes• The involvement of customers and

suppliers in the development process

Create teams to increase the likelihood of project success:• Match structure to project type• Include a diverse range of

functions• Match team leader attributes to

type of team

Use the available tools to expedite the NPD process and maximize the product's fit with customer requirements

Source: 1) Schilling, M. A., & Hill, C. W. (1998). Managing the new product development process: strategic imperatives 2) Internal elaborations



2 Literature Review

3 Methodology

4 Case Studies


6 Conclusions

Contents


Multiple case studies and qualitative research meth ods are considered appropriate models to approach specific issues and develop deep under standing of a certain phenomena

� Social science research uses case studies for

organizational studies (Kohlbacher, 2005) as they

facilitate a better understanding of (company) culture

and values: the influence of less tangible

aspects.

� A group of cases is studied and enables the

researcher to explore differences within and

between cases. The goal is to replicate findings

across cases

� Through case studies data from multiple sources are

collected, analyzed, compared and summarized,

allowing an holistic view of a certain phenomenon

Case Studies

3 Methodology – Research models

� Qualitative research methods utilizes experience

and interpretation of events by actors with widely

differing stakes and roles

� Qualitative research methods are valuable in

providing rich descriptions of complex

phenomena

� The literature indicates that is worth using qualitative

methods when the phenomenon is not well known

or understood with the aim of generating new

theories

� The use of a quantitative approach was

considered a limitation as collection of statistical

and numerical data would not provide the critical

descriptive detail required for this study

Qualitative Research


Multiple case study strategy and protocol developme nt are typically based on a three stage process

Source: Yin, R. K., “Case Study Research”, 2003b, p. 50

Methodology Overview

Developtheory

Select cases and

design data collection protocol

ConductCase Study

1

Conduct Case Study

2

Write individual

case reports

Write individual

case reports

Draw cross-case

conclusions

Modify theory

& Develop policy

implications

1 2

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

5 6

A. Design

B. Fieldwork &

Analysis

C. Conclusions

3 Methodology – Overview

� Develop theory : build a consistent framework from an extensive literature and documents

� Select cases and design data collection protocol : select companies and the procedures for executing investigations

� Conduct case studies: use semi-structured questions carefully designed to provide adequate coverage for the purpose of the research.

� Write individual case reports , reviewing all relevant documents and all interview/survey data

� Draw cross-case conclusions , analyzing similarities and differences between cases and listing similarities and differences.

� Modify theory and develop policy implications utilizing provided information to verify hypothesis and refining theory.

1

2

3

4

5

6


The case study has been constructed through the use a semi-structured interviews with key personnel of the firm

3 Methodology – Interviews

To reinforce the use qualitative methods, standardi zation techniques and consistency checks have been performed during the research

Interviews

� Explicit data were gathered using semi-structured interviews conducted with key personnel involved with innovation activity in each company

� This approach has been chosen rather than a structured because it offers adequate flexibility to approach diverse respondents differently while still covering the same areas of data collection

� Literature (Tellis, 1997; Umit, 2005; Yin, 2004) advocates open-ended questions in the interviews facilitating free discussion and suggests its use when it is desirable to know what is being thought by people and if the ideas are intricate or problematic to express

� Literature emphases the significance of interviews needing to be reliable, consistent and have validity, with questions structured and responses collected in order to provide effective information for the purpose of the study

� Known as “elite interviewing ” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999), starting with each company’s most senior person gave access to the overall knowledge of the company’s innovational activities

� The suggested employees were considered suitable by the senior person as having extensive involvement witheach company’s innovation realization processes


Two company of the ICT industry have been selected as case study reference

3 Methodology – Criteria for company selection

� A sector recognized as both innovation-aware and innovation-driven was requested for this research

� ICT was chosen because innovation is regarded as a critical requirement for operating in the industry’s rapidly changing environment

� Competitive forces are felt more keenly than in some other industries with innovative activity at the forefront of management actions in ICT firms.

Industry Selection

Criteria for Companies Selection

Companies Overview

� The companies were selected through information available in the public domain (media releases, industry resources) as demonstrating successful innovation activities

� The companies chosen for this study exhibit NPD innovation practices , indicating that innovation systems of some form exist in the organizations

� The selection of two companies as an appropriate number allowed for some variation (similarities and differences) within the scope of the study and within the time constraints

� The two companies are all technology-based , yet provide similar services and do not compete with each other, operating in different countries

� The two companies who agreed to be case study subjects are all privately owned

� The two companies are perceived as successful members of the technology industry

� The companies demonstrate relevance to the general industry rather than being unique or extraordinary, supporting replicability and generalization


The methodology and its application have some short comings to be considered

3 Methodology – Limitations of Research

Limitations of Methodology Research

� The scope of this study was delimited to two companies that have established innovation-to-outcome systems in the

ICT industry. Although multi-case studies are considered more robust than single cases, the selection of two has to be

considered as a minor sample potentially reducing general applicability

� This industry was expressly selected as providing indicators to innovatively successful companies as innovation

agility is a pre-requisite for continuing growth in this highly competitive environment

� The employment of the ICT industry and its distinct nuances may limit generalization to companies outside of the

industry

� Qualitative data are subjective to researcher bias , as are interviews . The assumed limitation of qualitative

methods is that they presumably allow more room for the researcher’s subjective and arbitrary judgment. They are

often seen as less rigorous than quantitative approaches are.



2 Literature Review

3 Methodology

4 Case Studies


6 Conclusions

Contents


An italian and a british company were choosed for t he case studies

4 Case Studies – Selected Companies

� One of the top mobile telecommunications companies in Italy, offering the full range of telecommunications services

� A leading actor in introducing multimedia services in the Italian market

Company Overview

Company Key Numbers

Interviewed People

Company A Company B

� Established in 2002

� Firm’s turnover in excess of $2 billion

� More than 2.000 employees

� The General director

� The CTO (Chief Technology Officer)

� The Marketing director.

� A UK company operating in the mobile telecommunication industry

� Developed the first commercial UK video mobile network

� Voted as Best Network for Mobile Broadband in a survey more than once

� Established in 2003

� Firm’s turnover in excess of $2 billion

� More than 1.500 employees

� The Senior Marketing manager

� The ICT development manager

� A project manager


From the idea generation the NPD process selection follows a sequence of steps to identify:

� If the project is worth of concept refining and if the high level business case holds

� which process typology utilize (Fast Track, Rapid Adjustment of Full NPD) before detailing the business case

� different approval responsibilities according to the required investments

Idea Generation

Idea Sharing

Manager Approval

Concept Refining

High Level Business Case

Yes

No

No Yes

Incremental

Radical

Fast Track RequiringNon

Fast Track Requiring

Fast Track

Rapid Adjustment

Full NPD

Detailed Business Case

Board Approval

No

> 200 k€investment

Yes

Manager Approval

No

No

Implement

Yes

Implement

Yes

4 Case Studies – Company A NPD Process Selection

The NPD selection process addresses different proce sses according to the deeper analysis needed for different kind of innovations a nd consequences on the company

NPD Process Selection

NPD Process Typologies

Full NPD Rapid Adjustment Fast Track

The complete process used for the introduction of new products and radical NPD

innovations

A simplification of the NPD Full process, used for new

products utilizing yet existing platforms

The process for urgent new products requiring shorter

time development


From the idea generation the NPD process selection follows a sequence of steps to identify:

� If the project is worth of a concept refining and if the high level business case holds

� which process typology utilize (Basic NPD, Resource Requiring and Radical Impact) according to the required investments

� different approval responsibilities according to the required investments

4 Case Studies – Company B NPD Process Selection

Company B NPD selection process addresses different processes according to the required investments and impacts on the company

NPD Process Selection

NPD Process Typologies

Basic NPDResource Requiring

A simplified process involving NPD incremental activities

requiring limited investments

A slightly simplified process involving mostly NPD

incremental activitiesrequiring up to Euro 300,000

Basic NPD

Idea Generation

Idea Sharing

Manager Approval

Concept Refining

High Level Business Case

Yes

No

No

Resource Requiring Radical Impact

Yes

> 30 k€investment

Manager Approval

No

Implement

No Yes

Detailed Business Case

Executive Board

Implement

No Yes

ShareholdersApproval

Implement

No Yes

> 300 k€investment

No

Yes

Radical Impact

For the introduction of completely new products or

radical innovations requiring more than Euro 300,000



2 Literature Review

3 Methodology

4 Case Studies


6 Conclusions

Contents


• NPD typology• Top Management

Prioritization

Company A Company B

Process SelectionRatio

Investment Threshold

Detailed Business Case Timing

Process Selection Responsibility

• < € 200,000• > € 200,000

• < € 30,000• > € 30,000 and < 300.000€• > € 300,000

• After the process selection

• Before the process selection (except Basic NPD)

• NPD typology vs. investment required

• Functional Manager • Board of Directors

• Functional Manager • Executive Board• Shareholders

5 Case Studies & Findings – NPD Process Selection Comparison

NPD Process Selection Comparison

Differences in NPD Process Selection of the two com panies exist in all the four categories highlighted


NPD Business Process Comparison

5 Case Studies & Findings – NPD Business Process Comparison

Both companies have three NPD process typologies de spite organized differently according to NPD typology

RadicalNPD

IncrementalNPD

Ful

l NP

D

Fas

t Tra

ck

Rap

id

Adj

ustm

ent

Company Aprocess typology

Fast Track is used for prioritized new products

Rad

ical

Res

ourc

e R

equi

ring

Bas

ic

Company Bprocess typology

Economical thresholds do not strictly determine selection

between RR and Radical NPDClarifications:

NP

D ty

polo

gy

� The figure illustrates the different typologies of innovation each process addresses

� Different kind of process may be used as a risk management tool to face different expected impacts on the company

� Both companies consider also the possibility to introduce 3rd Parties products or their involvement in the process,


Concept Definition

Product reqand

feasibility

Tech analysisand

planning

System Analysis and dev

Integration testing

Commercial Roll out

Ideation, concept and requirements creation

Product Development

Opportunity/Idea

Req, Feasibility and planning definition

Development & Test

Marketing Trial &

Full Scale Launch

Idea & Concept Development Product Development

Concept/ Macro

Planning

Com

pany

A

Com

pany

B

NPD Business Process Comparison

5 Case Studies & Findings – NPD Business Process Comparison (1/3)

The number and division of the activities of the NP D business process sub phases is a possible but not relevant source of differentiation between the two companies

2 sub phases in the initial part of the process for

company B

2 sub phases in the concept development

and requirement definition for company A

Sub phases

Sub phases

vs.

2 sub phases in the Product Development for the company B: different division of the activities

6

5

+

In house activities


Com

pany

A

Det

aile

d P

roce

ss

Com

pany

B

Det

aile

d P

roce

ss

Com

pany

A

Det

aile

d P

roce

ss

Also governance and operational responsibilities pr esent mismatches between the two companies

5 Case Studies & Findings – NPD Business Process Comparison (2/3)C

ompa

ny A

D

etai

led

Pro

cess

Distinctive Characteristics of the Business processes

Project manager

Project review board*

Project sponsor

Opp./ IdeaConcept/

Macro planningRequirements, Feasibility and Planning

Definition

Product Req. Doc

(PRD)

Proj def doc

(PDD)Project delivery manager

Dev Team (BA IT)

Go/No go

Req. definition

Det. Project

planning

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Go/ No go

Req. analysis

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Macro planning

up to DB3

Proj init doc

(PID)

Go/No go

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Other functions

Sys analysis & high level

design

Dev and testing

SRSSDS

Product dev manager (Mktg)

Product brief

Development&Test

Internal trial

Integr testing

Market trial & Full Scale Launch

Customer trial

D&B1 D&B2 D&B3 D&B4 D&B5

Go/ No go

Go/ No go

*In the D&B1 NPD Process Selection rules apply

∼4 weeks(cumulative: 6 weeks)

∼4 weeks(cumul: 10 weeks)

∼2 weeks ∼10 weeks(cumul: 20 weeks)



Product &Services

Marketing/web studio

Other ITA Functions (Legal, Regulatory, Admin, CRM, Sales…)

CTO:Services, IT, Network,Terminals

Go/No go

Review board

Concept definition Product req and feasibility

Concept (PDB)

Project Sponsor

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Go/No go

Tech analysis and

planning

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Approvedoc

Proj def doc

(PDD)+ Bus case

Conceptfeasible?

Gate 3: strategic and financial attractiveness; resources

availability according to the planning; project score

Gate 2: requirements stability, product feasibility and High Level Bus Case

attractiveness

Proj Initiation

Doc

Gate 1: strategic and tech fit; gross margin; resources for analysis.

Decide process

Go/No go

Det.Tech. Analysis

Sys. analysis, dev & internal testing

Integration Testing

Commercial roll-out

SRSSDS

Internal test

Product SW Integration

testReady?

Approve

Go/No go

Gate 4: readiness for commercial roll-out;

consistency with concept and focus groups feedback

Contact center

doc

Content provider

Commercial plan

Launch?

Gate 5: readiness for launch

Draft Content

Final Content

User Acceptance

Test

Media plan; brochure

Product plan

Approvedoc

Demo

Mock-up & focus groups Approve

storyb

Analysis

Analysis

Business case

Product req

(PRD)

Storyboard

The full range of governance and operational responsibilities described in the previous section present some differences between the companies:

� Project review board : company A has two different board arrangements depending on which gate of the NPD process is; differently company B has the same board for all gates. Additionally Company B board meets regularly (weekly appointment) for projects updates.

� Project Sponsor : In the company A this role is held by the Marketing department while for company B it is performed by the Product & Services function. In the first and in the last Gate in the company A the sponsor has the responsibility for the Go/ No Go of the new product development/ launch on the market.

� Project Manager : In the company A it is a person of the Product & Services with the responsibility for the end to end project management of the initiative; in the company B the project manager is the head of the project team, and belongs to the function mainly responsible for the execution of the product innovation (Tech./P&S)


According to interviews the overall commonalities a bout success factors and obstacles overcame differences between the two comp anies

5 Case Studies & Findings – NPD Business Process Comparison (3/3)

Differences Commonalities

� Company A prioritizes the Innovation process

� Company A has the capability of allowing the parallelizing of development activities

� Company B is focused on financial measurement

� Company B is more focused on Portfolio management

� Presence of a structured technology strategy

� Perceived flexibility to different NPD needs

� Company values , necessary to stimulate openness of communication

� Capacity to prepare and plan the upfront activities

� The importance of quality in the development, aiming at differentiated and superior products

� The need for a champion in resource demanding or complex innovations

Similar issues with barriers overall, despite isolated cases regarding:

� Company A too confident attitude towards complex problems which could lead to wrong estimations or extra work

� Possible bottleneck or delay to define the Project Manager (functional organization) for Company B

� Existence of too many projects and not enough resources . This could outline a generalized lack in the capacity of the two companies in fixing priorities

� Too Hurry . This, like the former, could be caused by strategy management issues, as well as from management practices

Suc

cess

Fac

tors

Obs

tacl

es


Important findings may be highlighted following the case studies on the two companies

5 Case Studies & Findings – Key Findings

Key Findings

� Results reveal that the case study companies have similar types of NPD innovation systems and patterns

� Monetary threshold are used as guidelines to address the innovation approval responsibilities

� Well defined governance roles (for the NPD project selection and approval responsibilities) provide greater control on

projects and structured decision points

� The importance of access to decision makers and culture open to innovation are recurring features to unlock new

value

� High level business case may permit quick decisions in case of minor product innovations

� The use of dedicated cross-functional task forces is a good workaround solution when timeliness is critical, as well

as fast prototyping methodologies

� Both companies have arranged their process to enable the introduction of 3rd parties in the new product development



2 Literature Review

3 Methodology

4 Case Studies


6 Conclusions

Contents


A framework for successful patterns and practices managing NPD innovation is drafted subsequently to literature and case studies analysis

6 Conclusions – Emerging NPD Process

Emerging successful patterns and practices in NPD P rocess

Technology Strategy

Organizational Context

Process Teams Tools

Suc

cess

Fac

tors

to

be

inco

rpor

ated

�Strategy in accordance to point of strength and marketing needs

�Seek differentiated and superior products

�Plan and resource market launch

�A defined a Governance board should govern and control the long term new product innovation

�Simplify the governance for “easy” products

�Keep the innovation instinct

� Involve customers and suppliers

�Appropriate project management structure

�Different typologies of NPD business process for different innovational impacts and specific needs

�Use parallel stages� Implement Fuzzy

gates� Invest your time in

preparation

� Implement cross-functional team working

� Involve Decision Makers in the teams

�Allow the use of task forces to fast track the development activities

�A New Product Committee should produce an operational plan

� Involvement of executive champions

Implement:� Rapid prototyping � Decision making

tools and to transform user demands into better processes and products

� Software for the NPD process facilitation


Purpose of this study was to gain empirical evidenc e on how the NPD process transforms innovational concepts from origin to out come

6 Conclusions

� Investigated various literature on the innovation subject

� Dedicated a major focus to the NPD processes literature

� Introduced success factors and existing obstacles to a successful NPD

Literature Review Chapter 2

� Explored the qualitative methodologies utilized for the case studies

� Provided a theoretical framework for the analysis, describing the rationale used for interviews, company selection, data gathering

� Presented results of interviews and analysis, described the NPD systems used by companies, the detailed processes and the key influences

� Outlined the key findings resulting from the case studies

� Provided successful patterns and practices managing NPD innovation

Methodology Chapter 3

Case Studies and significant findings Chapter 4/5

App

roac

h A

dopt

ed

Future areas of Improvement

� From structured process to NPD smart System , allowing conditional, situational, and focused decisions

� Major recurrence to NPD Process Outsourcing and Externalization

� NPD process informatization

Suggestions for Further Research

� Similar analysis on firms of different industries� Including the laggards in the NPD process analysis

� Evaluation of innovational performance over time after the introduction of structured NPD process

� Understanding the levers to maintain the innovative capabilities while implementing operational improvements


Thank You

Transforming innovation concepts into an outcome ph d_v_basile

Business

Transcript of Transforming innovation concepts into an outcome ph d_v_basile