an activity model of the product development process

This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]On: 04 October 2014, At: 23:42Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Engineering DesignPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjen20

An activity model of the productdevelopment processTony Fairlie-Clarke a & Mark Muller aa Department of Mechanical Engineering , The University ofGlasgow , Glasgow, UK , G12 8QQPublished online: 02 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Tony Fairlie-Clarke & Mark Muller (2003) An activity model ofthe product development process, Journal of Engineering Design, 14:3, 247-272, DOI:10.1080/0954482031000091040

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000091040

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjen20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0954482031000091040

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000091040

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

An activity model of the product development process

TONY FAIRLIE-CLARKE{* and MARK MULLER{

The inclusion of certain activities in the product development process (PDP) andtheir efficient execution have been identified as important factors for new productsuccess. It is therefore important to be able to identify both what activities arepresent in a particular PDP and what activities should be present. The workreported in the present paper arose from the need to identify these activities as partof a method to evaluate the effectiveness of a company’s PDP. Successfulapplication of co-ordination processes, such as scheduling, resource allocation andconcurrent engineering, also depends on having a complete representation of thePDP activities. The requirements that a model of the PDP activities should satisfyare identified in the paper. Existing models are reviewed, but none fully meetsthese requirements. A new generic model of PDP activities has been developedusing the IDEF0 structure to derive a set of 18 generic elements against whichcompanies can map their own PDP activities. This model is presented in detail, theresults of tests in a number of manufacturing companies are described, andcomparisons are made with a number of existing models. The 18 generic elementsare found to be sufficient to represent all the test cases.

1. IntroductionSuccessful new product development (NPD) is an essential element for the renewaland survival of many manufacturing companies. This has been recognized for manyyears. Cooper (1980, pp 277) notes ‘new product development stands out as one ofthe most crucial yet deficient functions of the modern corporation . . .more and morefirms are taking a critical look at their new product efforts’. In a review paper, Hart(1995, pp 14) observes ‘Recognition of the importance of new product developmentto corporate and economic prosperity, coupled with the high risk of failure in suchendeavours, has triggered considerable research interest in the dynamics of new pro-duct development’. NPD remains an important field of research since many companiesare still not achieving the success rates they and their governments desire (Cooper andKleinschmidt 1991, Griffin 1997). It therefore remains relevant to explore means toenable companies to improve their success rates from product development activities.

The focus of this paper is on the activities undertaken during the product develop-ment process (PDP). A number of studies over the years have identified effectiveexecution of the development process, and of particular activities within the develop-ment process, as critical to new product success (Rothwell et al. 1974, Cooper 1979,Maidique and Zirger 1984, Cooper and Kleinschmidt 1986). A company with asuccessful PDP will do the right things and do them well. That is, they will achieve

Revision received June 2002{ Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ,

UK.* To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Engineering DesignISSN 0954-4828 print/ISSN 1466-1387 online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http:==www.tandf.co.uk=journalsDOI: 10.1080=0954482031000091040

J. ENG. DESIGN, VOL. 14, NO. 3, September 2003, 247–272

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

quality solutions in a timely and cost-effective manner. The things that must be done inorder to progress the state of the product and of the product supply operations towardthe realisation of the business opportunity are the added value activities of the processthat the present paper seeks to identify. The paper does not attempt to address the man-ner in which the activities are undertaken. That is, how, by whom, where, when, andwith what resources and information. Much of the research work into these issue hasfocused on concurrent engineering, but more recent work has been under the broaderheading of ‘co-ordination’ with the objective being to organize activities so as toachieve optimum performance. Whitfield et al. (2000) and Coates et al. (2000) providean extensive review of research and methods in this area, addressing the strategic andoperational contexts, respectively. Work on collaboration is also relevant, but hasfocused more on the use of computational tools.

To apply co-ordination methods and to have distributed teams working collabora-tively, it is necessary for a company to have a clear and complete understanding of theactivities that must be undertaken. These, of course, may be different in every case.They will depend on the nature of the company and its products, and on the natureof the project. For example, the activities to design and develop a completely newproduct will be different to those required for an incremental change. Knowledge ofthe activities is the start point that is addressed in the present paper. Methods suchas co-ordination, concurrent engineering and knowledge engineering can then beapplied to improve the effectiveness of the PDP.

The activities can also provide a framework for an evaluation of the PDP. Fairlie-Clarke and Muller (1999) report on the basis and the features of a method to evaluatethe potential of a particular PDP to produce successful product outcomes. The method isapplied at the project level (i.e. it is concerned with the processes engaged to develop asingle specific product). It requires the company to identify the issues that will primarilydetermine the success of the product and then to relate these issues to the activities thataddress them. If activities that address important issues are performed effectively thenthere is a better likelihood of successful outcomes (Montoya-Weiss and Calantone1994). The effectiveness of each activity is determined by the manner in which it iscarried out, and is estimated in the method from an assessment of its characteristics.These relate to aspects such as co-ordination, communication, decision processes,knowledge and information available in the team, and the resources, systems andtools used.

There are many models of both the design process and the broader PDP thatidentify activities. Many product manufacturing companies have evolved their ownmodels, and some of these are very comprehensive. However, these models usuallyrelate to a particular scenario and it can be difficult to test the completeness of therepresentation of the activities. When developing the evaluation method, a need wasrecognized for a rigorous approach to identifying a complete set of activities for anyPDP. Such a set would also provide a useful basis for applying co-ordination and otheroperational management methods. The approach adopted was to produce an activitymodel that was generic at a high level of abstraction so that it would be both generalacross industries and complete in the sense that any company could map their ownPDP activities onto the model and expand these at a more detailed level.

The present paper reports on the development and testing of a generic activitymodel of the PDP to serve this purpose. The results of surveys conducted during thedevelopment are presented, together with full details of the final model.

248 T. Fairlie-Clarke and M. Muller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

2. Scope of the modelThe scope of the PDP is taken as described by Hart (1995, pp 21), and ‘ . . . involvesactivities and decisions from the time an idea is generated (from whatever source) untilthe product is launched on to the market’. The product may be entirely new, or it maybe derived from an existing product. The ‘supply’ activities of sales, orders, purchas-ing, manufacture, distribution and product support are viewed as quite separate from,and subsequent to, the PDP. However, it is important that the model should be devel-oped within the context of the overall sphere of operations of a manufacturingcompany so that users can relate each activity to higher level objectives and identifywith the model. The developed model therefore embraces, at least at a high level ofabstraction, all the processes involved in operating a company with the objective togenerate profits by supplying and supporting products in a market. Thus, for example,the product development programme activities of developing and applying a productstrategy, and considering tactical objectives for projects, are represented in the model,but are not included in the final list of generic elements (GE) of the project level PDP.

3. Requirements of the modelProcess models may be required for a variety of purposes. In this case, a generalizedactivity model is required that suffices in every situation to represent the added valueexecution and control activities of the PDP of any company. The intention of the modelis to aid companies to understand and describe their current PDP and possible devel-opments of it, rather than to prescribe a particular PDP. However, it may also form thebasis for a new or revised PDP. The model must therefore be complete at the higherlevel of abstraction so that any manufacturing or design company can map the activ-ities of its own PDP onto the GEs of the model to create a lower level model that isspecific to the company and to the requirements of a particular development project.Although the generic model must be sufficient to represent all PDP activities in anycompany, not all GEs will be necessary in every case. Companies need use only thoseGEs necessary to fully represent their activities, which will depend on their industry,product type and the nature of the product development. For example, if a project is todevelop a product in accordance with a specification given by the customer, then someof the front-end GEs and marketing GEs would not apply.

The full and specific requirements evolved during the project and are as follows.

1. The focus is to be on making profits through products.2. The model is to account for the full scope of activities of the project level PDP.

That is, idea generation to product launch, although some projects may notembrace this full scope.

3. The activities that are included in the model are to be only those that advancethe state of development of the product, either by advancing or refining itsdefinition, or by approving progression to a new stage. That is, the model mustrepresent product development as comprising a distinct bounded set of execu-tion and control activities that can be used as a definable unit of assessment.

4. The model is to place the PDP in the context of the full product businessoperations of the company so that all boundaries and interfaces are visible, andso that the activities can be judged as necessary and complete responses tohigher level objectives.

Activity model of product development process 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

5. For the same reason, the model is to define activities in a hierarchical mannersuch that each higher level activity is expanded into a number of subactivitiesat the next lower level.

6. Whatever purpose the model is used for, it is likely that comparisons and linkswill be made between activities. It is axiomatic that these will be more reliableif like is compared with like. For example, it will be easier to compare theimportance of the activity ‘assess user needs’ with ‘perform concept design’than with ‘select bolt size’. This can be expressed as a requirement thatGEs should be of like level of abstraction.

7. The model is to provide a complete set of GEs onto which the execution andcontrol activities of the PDP of any company can be mapped. Thus, the GEsmust be set at a level of abstraction above that at which the contingent natureof the PDP becomes apparent. Users must be able to develop the model byadding under each GE the activities related to the specific objectives andcircumstances of their particular projects.

8. The GEs are to be at the lowest level of abstraction consistent with require-ment 7 so that the activities mapped onto the GEs will be identifiable as tasksthat can be assigned to individuals or teams as part of the managed activities ofthe company.

9. As a test of requirement 7, it should be possible to map the execution and con-trol activities from any functional model of the PDP available in the literaturedirectly onto the chosen GEs, provided that it covers the same scope.

4. Development of the model4.1. Existing models

Because of the utility of models for organizing information and representing struc-tures, a large number exist in the product development literature. These serve a varietyof purposes. Many of them focus on the existence of certain activities that are identi-fied as necessary for successful product development, either generally or in specificscenarios. Some focus more on the structure and organization of the process, includingthe sequence and interaction of tasks, such as is seen in concurrent engineering. Otherstake a broader approach that integrates discussions of the activities with issues of sche-duling and resourcing and with a methodological approach. For this work, it is the firstfocus that is important.

While many of the models that are reviewed in the following have been widely andsuccessfully used in various contexts, each is unsuitable, or lacking, in some respectfor the current purpose. The models identify an informed range of activities, but insome the scope does not match the requirement, and in others the level of abstractionis either inconsistent, or is not taken to sufficient depth. However, the published workis useful in two ways. First, it provides various lists of activities that can be useddirectly to help evolve a model that does meet the requirements and, second, thevalidity of the final model can be tested by checking that all valid PDP activities inthe literature can be mapped onto the GEs.

Booz et al. (1968) describe an empirically based model that begins with explora-tion of the marketplace to identify customer needs. Myers and Marquis (1969) outlinea five-stage model based on a study of 567 case histories of incremental innovations.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

These empirical models provide descriptions of industrial processes at a high level ofabstraction and do not extend to the marketing or business activities.

In a paper that classifies NPD processes, Cooper (1983a) reviews a model byYorke-Saville and a similar model by Roberts and Romine. Both models are basedin industry and set at the project level, but their scope is limited to research and devel-opment stages and, again, does not include business and marketing activities.

Cooper (1983a) also classifies seven different industry-specific processes by iden-tifying 20 constituent activities from the literature and determining the frequency ofexecution of each in 58 companies. Groupings of dominant activities form the basisof the classification. Calantone et al. (1986) use the same 20 activities in a similarstudy. Cooper’s project level model covers a broad scope and the list of activities isextensive, but not at a consistent level of abstraction.

Cooper (1983b) proposes a process model for industrial product development. Thiswidely recognized, project level model consists of seven stages and 16 activities. Thestages are separated by evaluation points, or go=kill decision nodes. Although findingsfrom many research projects are pulled together, the model is essentially a theoreticallayout of the 20 activities presented earlier by Cooper. Calantone and Di Benedetto(1988) present an adaptation of Cooper’s (1983b) model, and later Cooper (1990)himself uses this model as the foundation for work on stage-gate processes. This workdescribes a number of PDPs that Cooper has observed in practice, but its focus is onthe structure and organization of the process rather than the constituent activities.

A respected and well-used design process model by Pahl and Beitz (1995) identi-fies a number of phases and phase outputs in moving from problem to solution. Themodel is set at the project level, with its focus on a prescribed operational procedurefor the design of the product. It has been drawn on for these aspects, but its scope doesnot embrace the full PDP.

Andreasen and Hein (1987) present a broadly based approach to product designthat is integrated around the themes of market, product and production. A five-phasemodel maintains these themes as three separate, but integrated, streams with a num-ber of additional models of activities used to represent certain viewpoints. The threethemes provide a good basis for examining the scope of activities required in a com-prehensive model.

Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1986) develop a list of 13 activities from other authors(Booz et al. 1982, Cooper 1983b). They find that there is a greater probability ofcommercial success if all of these process activities are completed. This finding issubstantiated by Dwyer and Mellor (1991), who replicated the study in Australiancompanies.

Morley and Pugh (1987) present a design activity model that locates productdesign activity firmly within the overall structure of a business. The work shows howthe design activity core can be used to model information flow between the businessdesign boundary and the design core. The focus is on operational aspects of theprocess rather than isolating activities that might be used as GEs.

Clark and Fujimoto (1991) report on product development in the global automotiveindustry. They present a theoretical high-level model of product development as com-prising three processes: a PDP; a production process; and a consumption process. ThePDP has the phases product concept, product plan, product design and process design.Information from customers is fed in from the consumption process. Their model isgeneric only at a high level of abstraction, becoming specific to the automotive industry


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

at the detail level. The model provides guidance as to the phases that should be presentin a PDP.

Wheelwright and Clark (1992) present a model to illustrate functional activitiesduring cross-functional integration. The model relates to the motor industry and itsscope excludes the inception phase of the process. The model presents many activitiesthat need to be reflected in the generic model, but they are not given at a consistentlevel of abstraction.

The BS 7000 (1997) model is a high-level model aimed at senior management. Theactivities are described at inconsistent levels of abstraction and it is not easy to map alltypes of PDP onto this model. However, it is extensive and provides some usefulchecklists of activities.

Song and Montoya-Weiss (1998) identify a number of critical activities for develop-ing ‘really new’ products as distinct to incrementally evolving existing products. Theirindustry-based project level model presents activities at a useful level of abstraction andprovides a framework of activities that is quite closely reflected in the generic model.

The models so far discussed provide a list of activities or phases that are, or shouldbe, executed. These models cannot be used to fully describe the processes needed forrapid NPD and fast time to market because they do not account for scheduling ofactivities and provision of resources. Other models do address these managementissues. An early paper by Clausing (1985) presents a concurrent process (although notreferred to as such), and Cooper (1994) discusses third-generation product develop-ment processes (i.e. those where activities overlap). On the contrary, Hart (1995)argues that, although success indicators point to functional integration, concurrency(i.e. parallel activities) implies the notion of functional separation. Thus, Hart believes‘converge’ to be a better description of what is required in NPD management, andshe presents a ‘multiple convergence model’ for the early stages of the NPD process.The ‘control’ activities in the new model can be related to points of convergence but,in the main, these papers address co-ordination issues that the generic activity model isnot intended to represent.

4.2. Initial development

Six industrial contacts provided a core body for testing and evaluating the PDPmodel throughout its development. These contacts were all people directly involvedin the design and development of new products at a senior management level who hadan in-depth knowledge about company processes, products, markets, culture, contexts,and so on. Working closely with experts in a company, rather than using a larger sta-tistical sample of less well informed observers, is a research methodology argued byMintzberg (1979) and supported by Gill and Johnson (1997). The group comprised thefollowing.

� The managing director of a machinery group of companies producing lowvolume capital goods. The company employs approximately 130 staff and hasan annual turnover of £15 million.

� The managing director of a chemical filtration systems manufacturer, withapproximately 40 staff and an annual turnover of £3.5 million.

� The engineering director of a company developing and manufacturing earth-moving machinery, with approximately 700 staff and an annual turnover of£85 million.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

� The head of design technology of an aero-engine manufacturer, with approxi-mately 43 000 staff and an annual turnover of £4 billion.

� A senior manager (retired) of a large US-based computer manufacturingcompany.

� The senior naval architect at a marine systems manufacturer producing lowvolume industrial products, with approximately 250 staff and an annual turnoverof £20 million.

As a first approach, a list of 14 GEs of the PDP was derived directly from the literatureand was tested using a questionnaire-based survey of manufacturing companies. Therespondents were asked to identify their strength of focus on each GE on a scale from1 (low) to 5 (high), and to add any other GEs they thought necessary in order to fullyrepresent their PDP. The survey was piloted with the core group who were able toindicate their strength of focus on the GEs, although some experienced difficulty ininterpreting the GEs and in understanding the context of each GE. To help with this,the list of GEs was expanded and placed in a more intuitive chronological order forthe full survey (see Table 1). It was also recognized that the exact scope and contextof the PDP would need to be made more visible.

The revised questionnaires were posted to the managing, technical or engineeringdirector of 127 companies active in the mechanical, electrical and electronic manufac-turing sectors, and engaged in the design and development of their own products.Twenty-nine responses were received. Respondents indicated that they experiencedlittle difficulty in relating their own PDP to the GEs and identifying a strength of focus.The small histograms in Table 1 show the proportion of the sample responding witheach strength of focus. The focus is strongest on the technical and test activities.There is a clear split between companies with a strong focus on the front end conceptactivities, and those with more mature products who have a low focus on these activ-ities. The focus on evaluation and on management of cost and time to market is on thelow side. A number of additional GEs were identified by the companies, indicating thatthe current list needed further refinement. Respondents were happy with the conceptthat some activities could be rated as more important than others, which is an impor-tant assumption made in the method for evaluating the PDP.

The main finding from the survey, and from follow-up discussions with somerespondents, was that there was a need to define the scope of the PDP more clearlyand to set the GEs in the context of the overall company structure in which the modelis based. Without this, it was not always clear what scope of activities was covered by aGE, and it would be difficult to achieve the completeness and consistency in level ofexpansion that was sought.

4.3. Final development

As a result of the survey, it was felt that the activity model should be evolveddirectly from an existing model of high-level company processes, while ensuring thatproper account was taken of the activities identified in the literature. This was theapproach finally adopted. The high level model of Fairlie-Clarke and Clark (1993),which has as its focus ‘generate profit through products’ (see figure 1, node A0), wasused as the starting point. Node A2 embraces all the company activities. Nodes Al, A3and A4 represent activities of the society within which the company operates. Society,in effect, regulates the company, supplies the people and resources required by thecompany, and also purchases and utilizes (consumes) the products of the company.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

This model was developed using the IDEF0 method, and it was decided to continueto follow the basic precepts of this method to provide a structured basis for the genericPDP activity model. IDEF0 is a method for modelling system functions based onSoftech Inc.’s (1981) Structured Analysis and Design Technique. It was originallydesigned to represent manufacturing cells or activities, and the objectives and proce-dures of the method relate well to the requirements for the generic model. For example,it models functions (or activities) while avoiding an organizational viewpoint; it allowsdetails of a complex system to be located easily; it was designed to define generic

For a chosen product, please identify from the following list the generic elements of the productdevelopment process that are present in your own company. Please rate on a scale of 1 (low focus) to 5(high focus) how strongly your own activities focus on each generic element.

Results

1 2 3 4 5

—Market research (determine customer requirements)

—Concept generation

—Concept evaluation

—Concept development

—Business development (market analysis, commercial feasibility,business plans)

—Detail design of product

—Performance evaluation (throughout development)

—Safety evaluation (throughout development)

—Reliability evaluation (throughout development)

—Cost evaluation of product (throughout development)

—Testing and modifications of detail design

—Procurement (determine technical and quality requirements ofbought-in components and materials, and source these)

—Manufacturing process planning

—Prototype manufacture

—Testing and qualification of prototype

—Customer=client trials

—Support services to product development process (personnel,equipment, information, etc.)

—Design of product support and documentation

—Design of promotion of product (launch, advertising, etc.)

—Management of;

� time to market

� change (of product, personnel, process, etc.)

� overall cost of development

—Other (please specify)

Table 1. Survey questionnaire relating to generic elements of the product development process.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

subsystems; and it models bounded systems. Each function (or activity) is representedby a box, while arrows are used to represent inputs, outputs, control mechanisms andthe means to perform the function. These arrows are viewed as interfaces that constrainthe function in that it cannot be executed effectively unless all interface requirementsare satisfied. In the design context, each activity can be viewed as a transformationprocess acting on the input to create the output. This viewpoint relates closely to thetransformation systems model of designing (Hubka and Eder 1988), in which the var-ious technical systems that contribute to the transformation process are akin to the con-trol and means interfaces of the IDEF0 model. The co-ordination of the activities isaffected through these interfaces, and they provide a useful framework to categorizethe characteristics of each activity for the purpose of estimating the effectiveness ofthe activity. They are used for this purpose in the PDP evaluation method (Muller andFairlie-Clarke 1999).

The purpose of the model in this paper is to identify the added value activities andto clearly separate them from management processes such as co-ordination and evalua-tion that operate on the activities. A full model of the PDP needs to show these pro-cesses together with all the interfaces between activities, and is therefore much morecomplex. The value of the activity model is that it separates what must be done from

Figure 1. Business processes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

how it will be done, and thereby provides a simpler starting point to developing themore complete model.

The IDEF0 rules for function expansion are therefore used without the interfacearrows to develop the activity model. These rules require that the model be hierarchicalwith a maximum of six functions at each level. Each function is expanded to revealfurther detail at the next lower level, with the depth of the model determined by theamount of detail that is to be represented. These models provide good clarity in repre-senting the process, and are easy to review and modify since there are only a smallnumber of activities at any one level. At the same time, they force a rigorous viewof the process. A step-by-step expansion of high-level company functions makesvisible detailed activities at lower levels in a consistent manner providing for likelevels of expansion. This type of model does not show the sequential or concurrentflow of activities, nor, in the absence of the interface arrows, does it show the interac-tions between activities.

Although IDEF0 was originally developed as a procedure for modelling manufac-turing operations, it has been applied by a number of authors (for example, Belhe andKusiak 1991, Colquhoun et al. 1993, Kusiak et al. 1994, Wu et al. 1996) to modellingdesign and product development activities. IDEF0 has also been applied by Ang et al.

(1994), in a similar way to that used here, to create a generic model of a manufacturingenterprise with the focus on manufacturing activities. They argue that Generic IDEFModels provide a starting point to develop company-specific models using informationobtained from interviews of company experts.

The expansion of the original high-level model of company operations representsthe primary functions as strategy, planning, execution and control (figure 1). Strategyand planning are functions that take place at a high level in the process and set thescene for the execution and control activities. The control activities involve evaluationof the outcomes of the execution activities against the objectives set by the operationalplans, and approval to proceed to the next stage. Management of the performance of anactivity is viewed as a characteristic of the activity. An illustrative model of the afore-mentioned view of company operations, as given by Fairlie-Clarke and Clark (1993), isshown in figure 2. This recognizes three main product states: approved idea; approvedconcept; and released product. The strategy and planning functions set the objectivesfor execution of the product development and the criteria for judging whether aproduct has achieved a particular state. The control function evaluates and approvesofferings from the product development execution function with the effect thatapproved ideas become part of the ‘product programme’, earmarked to be workedup as detailed proposals for product development projects; approved product develop-ment projects become part of the ‘project programme’, earmarked to be allocatedresources and scheduled for implementation; approved products become part of the‘product range’ to be manufactured and supplied to the market. This theme is evidentin the final model.

The GEs for the project level PDP activity model were selected from the executionand control functions of the expanded company model. A requirement for the modelwas that the GEs should be at like levels of abstraction. This is easy to state, but it isnot so easy to demonstrate that it has been achieved. The approach adopted was toselect the GEs at like levels of expansion. This is not necessarily the same thing, butit provided a workable basis for developing the model and led to a manageable numberof GEs.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The first version of the expanded IDEF0 model was circulated for comment to thecore group of industrial practitioners, which had now increased to eight as a result oftwo new contacts established during the survey.

� The technical director of a high volume computer components manufacturer,with approximately 130 staff and an annual turnover of £11 million.

� The technical director of a hi-fi components manufacturer producing low volumeconsumer products, with approximately 130 staff and an annual turnover £12million.

The respondents were given a copy of the model and asked whether they could identifywithin their own companies the activities through which they addressed each GE, andto comment on and suggest changes to the GEs and their constituent activities. Theindustry group were all able to identify with the GEs, to indicate their strength of focusand to isolate any GEs that were not appropriate to their type of product development.Their observations related mainly to the activity level below the GEs, and showed thatan individual representation of the PDP is necessary at that level. This providedconfirmation that the GEs were set at an appropriate level of abstraction. Some obser-vations also related to the scope of the model, noting that the front end of the processis not so extensive for the development of mature or customized products. Somerespondents suggested the addition of activities relating to the sequencing, interac-tions, costs, timeliness and technology risk assessments. However, as discussed earlier,it is not intended that the model should include these aspects. Some difficulties withthe scope and intention of the model, and with semantics, suggest the need for a usersmanual, and=or a facilitator, to help companies to prepare their own models.

Figure 2. Control of the product development programme.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The model was modified in response to these comments, the main changes being torename some GEs and to include some control activities as GEs, and then circulated toobtain further comment from six academic colleagues in engineering and marketingwho have experience of product development in industry. They added further usefulcomment, particularly with respect to reorganizing and adding to the activities listedunder the GEs.

The final model is described in the next section, and incorporates the changes madeas a result of both the industry group and the academic assessments.

5. Description of the generic modelFigures 3–5 show the company model created by expanding the functions in figure 1under the areas of technology development, product development, product supply,implementation of processes and provision of resources. The expansion has beenlimited to those nodes that feed directly into the final set of GEs, or that are necessaryto make clear the scope of the PDP by showing how related activities, such as technol-ogy development and provision of resources, are represented. The project level PDP isviewed as the means whereby a particular product is developed. The GEs are thereforedrawn only from the project level execution and control functions, which operate inresponse to the product strategy (node A203) and the objectives and plans set for thedevelopment of business processes and resources (A211), technologies (A212) and pro-ducts (A213).

The PDP model itself comprises a number of GEs selected from the expandedcompany functions and is shown in figure 6. For ease of interpretation and assessmentthey are arranged in a logical sequence against the product states as given by Fairlie-Clarke and Clark (1993), which are shown at the top of the figure. However, this doesnot imply rigid adherence to the sequence, nor any lack of integration or iteration ofactivities. Execution activities are shown in standard boxes while control activities areshown with a bold outline. Some constituent activities are shown under each GE.These are not intended to be generic, but to act as indicators for identifying thecompany-specific activities that implement each GE, and for comparison with existingmodels. The GEs are selected principally from the product development area. Otherareas, of course, interact with product development, and these interfaces arerepresented in the company model. It should be noted in particular that technologydevelopment is viewed here as a separate process that provides necessary inputs toproduct development. This approach is supported by Smith and Reinertsen (1995),who recommend that technology development should occur in parallel to NPD toreduce the high commercial risk associated with developing technology within thePDP. However, a consequence of taking this viewpoint is that the interactions betweentechnology development and product development must be carefully controlled.

To a large extent, the model will be self-evident from the figures, but some perti-nent points are discussed here to give an indication of the reasoning used to generatethe model.

Node A211 (figure 3), ‘Set objectives and plan process and resource provision’,includes deciding the type of budgeting and accounting processes to be used andsetting financial targets and budgets (A2111), as well as plans for the type of PDP


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Fig

ure

3.

Pla

nn

ing

pro

cess

es.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Fig

ure

3.

Co

nti

nu

ed.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Fig

ure

4.

Exec

uti

on

pro

cess

es.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Fig

ure

5.

Co

ntr

ol

pro

cess

es.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Fig

ure

6.

Th

ep

rod

uct

dev

elo

pm

ent

pro

cess

.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Fig

ure

6.

Co

nti

nu

ed.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

to be used and the resources, including people, systems, materials and information, tobe dedicated to product development (A2113).

Node A212 (figure 3), ‘Set objectives and plan technology development’, setsplans for technologies to become available in the future for incorporation into newproducts. The ideal is that the company defines technology content in this way ratherthan responding to technology needs as they arise during product development. Thereality may often be that product development activities reveal an immediate need fornew technology. The response to such needs is through node A2322 (figure 5).

Node A213 (figure 3), ‘Set objectives and plan product development’, addressesthe programme-level product development issues. The objectives and plans are setfor the product programme (A2131), the project programme (A2132) and the pro-duct range (A2133). The product programme and the project programme are, ineffect, the longer term plans for the product range, the immediate plans for whichwill include a schedule for introducing new and modified products, and for discon-tinuing products.

Node A22 (figures 1, 4 and 6), ‘Execute company operations’, includes the activ-ities that progress the product from state to state (i.e. GEs 1, 2, 4–6, 10, 11,14–16, 18)and the activities to develop any new facilities (factory, plant, tools, etc.) required forthe supply of the new product (GE 12). Supply products (A224) follows after therelease of a new product (GE 17) and is not a part of the PDP, but the monitoringof products (A2247) provides important feedback to the PDP.

Node A23 (figures 1, 5 and 6), ‘Control outcomes of company operations’,includes activities that enable senior management to ensure that company objectivesare satisfied by the outcomes of the execution activities without getting too closelyinvolved in day-to-day management of the activities. Sensitive and effective use of thecontrol activities enables empowerment of the execution teams. ‘Control process andresource development’ (Node A231) impacts on the PDP first by setting down thenature of the PDP and ensuring that resources (people, tools, information) are available(Node A2313), and second by controlling (A2314=GE 13) any requirement to developnew facilities (GE 12) for the supply of the new product. ‘Control product develop-ment’ (Node A233) acts as a stage gate by approving product proposals (GE 3) andproject proposals (GE 7). It initiates (GE 8) and monitors (GE 9) product developmentprojects, and checks that all requirements are satisfied before releasing the product intothe product range (GE 17). It also provides feedback on product requirements throughactivities under Node A2332 ‘Identify new product areas’ and under Node A2334‘Evaluate product range and feedback requirements’. These are product programme-level activities and are not therefore included as GEs.

6. Industry trialsTrials of the PDP evaluation method (Muller and Fairlie-Clarke, 1999) provided anopportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the PDP activity model. These trials werecarried out with the hi-fi component, computer component and marine engineeringcompanies from the industry group. A researcher acted as facilitator and workeddirectly with the collaborator from the company. The trials were designed to evaluatethe method as well as to test its implementation, and a questionnaire was used to obtainfeedback from the industry collaborator about each aspect of the evaluation method.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The PDP activity model was used during the trials to identify the activities to beevaluated. The first industrial collaborator had a clear view of his company’s PDP,which was very successful, and was happy that it could be represented directly by thenew model. The assessment was carried out using the activity lists under each GE,omitting any that were not relevant. It was not necessary to add any new activities.

Generic element Company 1 Company 2 Company 3

Rank Weight Rank Weight Rank Weight

1. Identify productopportunity

11 0.035 3 0.059

2. Generate productproposals

9>>>>=>>>>;

5 0.057 13 0.030 4 0.039

3. Evaluate and approveproduct proposals

15 0.024 2 0.078

4. Identify userrequirements andgenerate a productdesign specification

8 0.047 1 0.098

5. Develop productbusiness plans

9>>>>>>>>>>>>>=>>>>>>>>>>>>>;

4 0.1206 0.052 5 0.020

6. Generate projectproposals

10 0.042 3 0.059

7. Evaluate and approveproject proposals andbusiness plans

14 0.026 3 0.059

8. Fund and scheduleprojects

9=; 6 0.049

4 0.064 2 0.078

9. Monitor project againstobjectives

2 0.085 3 0.059

10. Design product 2 0.264 1 0.169 1 0.098

11. Specify supplyprocesses

9=; 3 0.178

1 0.169 5 0.020

12. Develop new supplyresources

5 0.062 3 0.059

13. Evaluate and approvesupply development(added later)

14. Validate design(technical)

9=; 1 0.305

3 0.068 2 0.078

15. Validate design(commercial)

n=a — 2 0.078

16. Develop product support 3 0.032 4 0.03917. Release products into

product rauge

9=; 7 0.026 9 0.044 4 0.039

18. Launch product 7 0.049 4 0.039

Table 2. Relative importance of generic elements.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

At the second company, the model was used to check, modify and expand thecompany’s own high-level phase model. Activities were taken directly from the GEsand mapped onto the company’s phase model. The collaborator was satisfied that thisprocess had enabled the activities to be fully represented and had bought to attention anumber of activities that would not otherwise have been specifically identified andassessed, but that were recognized as being important. The third company collaboratorhad a less well defined view of the company’s PDP, and relied on the PDP model todefine the activities to be assessed. All GEs were considered to be relevant, and theactivities were taken directly from the model.

Estimates of the relative importance of each of the GEs were made during thetrials. The first company preferred to group some of the GEs to give a reduced setof seven, while the other two companies used the full set of GEs (note that GE 13 wasadded afterwards as a result of these trials). The results are presented in Table 2 andshow that considerable differences in focus arise due to the different objectives that thecompanies have for their product development. Company 2, for example, is a spin-offcompany set up to develop and produce a particular product. They have a low focus onthe front end of the PDP at present, but will need to strengthen this as the companydevelops.

Although the collaborators were asked to rate the importance of each GE inrelation to PDP effectiveness, they tended to give a low rating to GE that were not seenas problem areas. For example, the front-end activities (GEs 1–7) were rated low, withthe exception of ‘Identify requirements and generate PDS’, which was consideredimportant by the marine practitioner. All practitioners also judged the product releaseand support activities (GEs 16–18) as having low impact on PDP effectiveness. This isslightly surprising, and rather different results may have been obtained if thecollaborators had been asked to consider the impact of failing to handle a particularGE effectively.

7. Comparison with published modelsThe objective of this test was to ensure that activities that are represented in the litera-ture as important for successful NPD can be mapped onto the generic model. Threecomprehensive models of the PDP were selected as representative of the publishedwork. BS 7000 was also included since standards seek to set out an authoritative viewand may well be a point of reference for companies looking to improve their PDP. Thecomparison is presented in Table 3, where the activities are mapped against the GEs. Insome models, several activities are grouped under one description and these have beendivided among two or more GEs. Table 3 shows that all activities can be mappedagainst one or more GEs, and requirement 9 is satisfied.

8. ConclusionsA PDP activity model has been created by identifying a set of execution and controltasks that represent the PDP at its lowest generic level of abstraction, and modellingthese as 18 GEs against which the activities of the PDP of any company can bemapped.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Wheelwright and Clark(1992)

GE No. BS 7000(BSI 1997)

GE No. Cooper and Kleinschmidt(1986)

GE No. Song and Montoya-Weiss(1998)

GE No.

Provide market-basedinput

Propose and investigateproduct concepts

Propose new technologies

Develop product ideas

Build models andconduct simulations

Propose and investigateprocess concepts

Define target customer’sparameters

Develop estimates ofsales and margins

Conduct early interactionwith customers

Choose components andinteract with suppliers

Build early system prototypes

Define product architecture

Develop cost estimates

1, 4

2, 6

1, 6

2, 6

6, 10

1, 4, 6

4

5

4

10, 11

14

10

11

Inception of new orimproved product

Analysis of opportunities

Formation of individualor core team

Analysis of business conceptsand product identification

Formulation of the projectobjectives and strategies

Preliminary evaluationand approval of the projectby the corporate body

Planning, research andfeasibility studies leadingto the formulation of aproject proposal

Refinement of characteristics

Development of afunctional specification

Development of projectconfiguration and workprogramme

Evaluation and sanctioningof project by corporate bodyand commitment of resources

1

1, 3

bs

4, 5

2

3

4, 56

6

6

6

7, 8

Proposed new productidea

Initial screening

Preliminary marketassessment

Preliminary technicalassessment

Detailed market study=research

Business=financial analysis

Product development

Prototype construction

In-house product testing

Customer tests ofproduct

Test market, trial sell

Trial production

Pre-commercialisationbusiness analyses

Production start up

Market launch

1, 2

3

4, 5

6

1, 4, 6

5, 7

10, 11

14

14

14

15

14

15

18

18

Strategic planning:preliminary assessmentand integration of aproject’s resourcerequirements, marketopportunities, andstrategic directives

Idea development andscreening: generation,elaboration, andevaluation ofpotential solutions

Business and marketopportunity analysis:execution of themarketing tasks forconverting new productideas into well-definedsets of attributes thatfulfil consumers’ needsand desires.

Technical development:design, engineering,testing, and buildingthe desired physicalproduct entity

Product testing: testing theproduct itself, as well asindividual and integratedcomponents of themarketing and advertisingprogrammes

Product commercialisation:co-ordinating, implementingand monitoring the newproduct launch

1, 23, 4

5, 67

4, 5

10, 1112, 1314

15,1618

15, 1617, 18

Table 3. Mapping of PDP models onto the generic elements.bs, Beyond scope of the generic model.

26

8T.

Fairlie-C

larke

and

M.

Muller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Wheelwright and Clark(1992)

GE No. Wheelwright and Clark(1992)

GE No. BS 7000(BSI 1997)

GE No. BS 7000(BSI 1997)

GE No.

Define process architecture

Conduct process simulation

Validate suppliers

Do detailed design ofproduct and interactwith process

Do detail design ofprocess

Design and developtooling and equipment

Build full scale prototypes

Conduct prototypetesting

Conduct customer testof prototype

Conduct prototypingevaluation

Refine details ofproduct design

Build second phaseprototypes

Conduct second phasecustomer tests

Evaluate prototypes

Plan marketing roll out

Establish distribution plan

11

11

11

10, 11

11

11, 12

14

14

14, 15

14, 15

10, 11

14

14, 15

14

12

12

Test and try out tooling andequipment

Install equipment and bringup new procedures

Build pilot units in commercial process

Evaluate and test pilot units

Solve problems

Refine process based on pilotexperience

Train personnel and verify supplychannel

Prepare for market roll out

Train sales force and fieldservice personnel

Prepare order entry=process system

Ramp up plant to volume targets

Fill distribution channels

Sell and promote

Interact with key customers

Evaluate field experiencewith product

Meet targets for quality, yieldand cost

12

12

14

14

bs

14

12

12

12

12

18

18

18

18

bs

bs

Form multi-disciplinary teamof specialists to realise the project

Design concept development

Rehearsing the customer–product experience

Outline design (embodimentdesign or general arrangement)

Detailed design

Construction and testingof pre-production design

Finalisation of completeddesign ready for manufacture

Design support for manufacture

Provisions for manufactureand delivery

Product launch, introduction,promotion, and on-goingcustomer support

Selling and use

Monitoring ‘in-use’ performancefor feedback and refining thedesign as necessary

On-going product testing

Project evaluation to identifyareas of PDP improvement

bs

10

4, 10

10, 11

10, 11

14

10, 11, 12

11, 12

12

5, 16, 18

18

bs

bs

9

Design support fordecommissioningactivities

Formal terminationof the project

Disposal of product

16

bs

bs

Table 3. Continued.

Activity

model

of

pro

duct

develo

pm

ent

pro

cess2

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The GEs were selected from an expansion of a company model so that they can beviewed in the context of the overall company operations and to ensure that they are alldefined at a common level of expansion. This enables comparative judgements to bemade regarding the contribution of each GE to the overall PDP.

An objective is that the model should act as a tool to enable any company toidentify a complete set of activities that represents their PDP at a company-specific andproduct-specific level. Findings from the industry trials provide some evidence that thestructure and completeness of the model enable this to be achieved. Three companieswith distinctly different products and processes were all able to utilize the modeleffectively. They all considered either that it was sufficient in its own right or that itwas a valuable aid for producing a full representation of their own PDP activities.However, more numerous trials across a wider range of industry sectors will berequired to provide further validation, and possibly further refinement, of the model.The work to date shows that this approach to creating company models of the PDPworks, and that companies with different products and processes can relate to itequally well. However, claims for completeness of the representation of the PDPactivities can only be tentative, given the limited scope of the trials that have beencompleted to date.

The methodology used to produce the PDP activity model can also be applied toexpand the company model to identify GEs in other areas such as technology devel-opment. It could also be applied to the development process for service products.

AcknowledgementsTable 3: The model from Wheelwright and Clark (1992) is reprinted with the permis-sion of The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group.Copyright # 1992 by Steven C. Wheelwright and Kim B. Clark.

The model from Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1986) is reprinted with the permissionof Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The model from Song and Montoya-Weiss (1998) is reprinted with the permissionof Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The model from Figure 2 of BS 7000 is reproduced with permission from BSIunder licence number 2003NC0135. BSI publications can be obtained from BSICustomer Services, 389 Chiswick Road, London W4 4AL (tel: þ44 (0) 20 89969001).

ReferencesANDREASEN, M.M. and HEIN, L. 1987, Integrated Product Development (Springer-Verlag).ANG, C.L., LUO, M. and GAY, R.K.L., 1994, Automation generation of IDEF0 models. Journal of

Intelligent Manufacturing, 5, 79–92.BELHE, U. and KUSIAK, A., 1991, The house of quality in a design process. International Journal of

Production Research, 34, 2119–2131.BOOZ, ALLAN and HAMILTON, 1968, Management of New Products (New York: Booz, Allen and

Hamilton Inc.).BOOZ, ALLAN and HAMILTON, 1982, New Products Management for the 1980’s (New York: Booz,

Allen and Hamilton Inc.).BS 7000, 1997, Design Management Systems. Part 2: Guide to Managing the Design of

Manufactured Products. British Standards Institution, London.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

CALANTONE, R.J. and DI BENEDETTO, C.A., 1988, An integrative model of the new productdevelopment process: an empirical validation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5,201–215.

CALANTONE, R.J., DI BENEDETTO, C.A. and COOPER, R.G., 1986, Variations in new productdevelopment management: a clustering approach. Proceedings of 1986 Educators’Conference Series: 52 (Chicago: American Marketing Association), pp. 231–236.

CLARK, K.B. and FUJIMOTO, T., 1991, Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organisation,and Management in the World Auto Industry (MA: Harvard Business School Press).

CLAUSING, D.P., 1985, Product development Process. Proceedings of the EEE InternationalConference on Communications, pp. 896–900.

COATES, G., WHITFIELD, R.I., DUFFY, H.B. and HILLS, W., 2000, Coordination approaches andsystems—part II: an operational perspective. Research in Engineering Design, 12, 73–89.

COLQUHOUN, G.J., BAINES, R.W. and CROSSLEY, R., 1993, A state of the art review of IDEF0.International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 6, 252–264.

COOPER, R.G., 1979, The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. Journal ofMarketing, 43, 93–l03.

COOPER, R.G., 1980, Project NewProd: factors in new product success. European Journal ofMarketing, 14, 277–292.

COOPER, R.G., 1983a, The new product process: an empirically-based classification scheme. R & DManagement, 13, l–l3.

COOPER, R.G., 1983b, A process model for industrial new product development. IEEE Transactionson Engineering Management, EM-30, 2–11.

COOPER, R.G., 1990, Stage-Gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. BusinessHorizons, May–June, 33, 3, 44–54.

COOPER, R.G., 1994, Third generation new product processes. Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 11, 3–14.

COOPER, R.G. and KLEINSCHMIDT, E.J., 1986, An investigation into the new product process: steps,deficiencies and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3, 71–85.

COOPER, R.G. and KLEINSCHMIDT, E.J., 1991, New product processes at leading industrial firms.Industrial Marketing Management, 10, 137–147.

DWYER, L. and MELLOR, R., 1991, Organisational environment, new product process activities, andproject outcomes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8, 39–48.

FAIRLIE-CLARKE, A.C. and CLARK, R.C., 1993, Towards a framework for product design.Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Engineering Design, The Hague (Zurich:Heurista), pp. 698–705.

FAIRLIE-CLARKE, A.C. and MULLER, M.H., 1999, Features of a method for the evaluation of theproduct development process. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference onEngineering Design, Munich (Garching: Technische Universitat Munchen), pp. 1155–1158.

GILL, J. and JOHNSON, P., 1997, Research Methods for Managers, 2nd edition (London: PaulChapman Publishing Ltd).

GRIFFIN, A., 1997, PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends andbenchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 429–458.

HART, S., 1995, Where we’ve been and where we’re going in new product development research. InProduct Development: Meeting the Challenge of the Design-Marketing Interface, edited byM. Bruce and W.G. Biemans (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd).

HUBKA, V. and EDER, W.E., 1988, Theory of Technical Systems, English edition (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).

KUSIAK, A., LARSON, T.N. and WANG, J., 1994, Re-engineering the design and manufacturingprocesses. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 26, 521–536.

MAIDIQUE, M.A. and ZIRGER, B.J., 1984, A study of success and failure in product innovation: thecase of the U.S. electronics industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,EM-31, 192–203.

MINTZBERG, H., 1979, An emerging strategy of ‘direct’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly,24, 582–589.

MONTOYA-WEISS, M.M. and CALANTONE, R., 1994, Determinants of new product performance: areview and meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 397–417.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

MORLEY and PUGH, S., 1987, The organisation of design: an interdisciplinary approach to the studyof people, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Engineering Design (New York:ASME).

MULLER, M. H. and FAIRLIE-CLARKE, A.C., 1999, Evaluation of activities in the productdevelopment process. Proceedings of the Sixth International Product DevelopmentManagement Conference, Cambridge, UK (Cambridge: University of Cambridge).

MYERS, S. and MARQUIS, D.G., 1969, Successful Industrial Innovation (Arlington, USA: NationalScience Foundation) NSF69-17.

PAHL, G. and BEITZ, W., 1995, Engineering Design, 2nd English edition (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).ROTHWELL, R., FREEMAN, C., HORLSEY, A., JERVIS, V.T.P., ROBERTSON, A.B. and TOWNSEND, J.,

1974, SAPPHO updated—Project SAPPHO Phase II. Research Policy, 3, 258–291.SMITH, P.G. and REINERTSEN, D.G., 1995, Developing Products in Half the Time, 2nd edition (New

York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).SOFTECH, INC., 1981, Integrated Computer-Aided Manufacturing (ICAM Architecture Part II): Vol.

IV—Function Modelling Manual (IDEF0) (OH: US Airforce Systems Command).SONG, X.M. and MONTOYA-WEISS, M.M., 1998, Critical development activities for really new versus

incremental products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 124–135.WHEELWRIGHT, S.C. and CLARK, K.B., 1992, Revolutionising Product Development: Quantum

Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality (New York: The Free Press).WHITFIELD, R.I., COATES, G., DUFFY, H.B. and HILLS, W., 2000, Coordination approaches and

systems—part I: a strategic perspective. Research in Engineering Design, 12, 48–60.WU, Z., XIONG, G. and PENG, Y., 1996, Product development process simulation for concurrent

engineering. High Technology Letters, 2, 1–4.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:42

04

Oct

ober

201

4

an activity model of the product development process

Documents