1. INTRODUCTION

Methods for innovating faster and better in order to gain competitive advantage has been on the mind of business leaders for hundreds of years – from the scientific management of Fredrick Taylor to the creative philosophies of IDEO. One of the most important means for achieving success has been viewed as being first to market, and this particular issue has been the subject for considerable study and discussion throughout the years.

One of the hindrances of faster developing time has been identified as the “over-the-wall” issue stemming from the sequential process where departments receive the result from the previous department’s work without having communicating before hand, resulting in time consuming patching-up before commencing on their actual tasks. The efforts for dealing with this issue have included collaborative new product development (NPD) methods where all participants gather at the

start of a project in order to avoid time consuming remodeling later in the process. The most known methods include concurrent engineering (CE), integrated product development (IPD), the Stage-Gate© model and dynamic product development (DPD). Even though largely covering the same issues, there is some dispute over how to best make use of these methods in an innovation aspect.

In this paper I will describe the background and principles of the different collaborative methods, and review some of their reported weaknesses and strengths. At the end, I will discuss what impact the introduction of these methods has had on the way today’s companies innovate. The paper is based on several articles and books from the fields of engineering, business, design and innovation, and is to be regarded as a review and reflection of literature, and not as a detailed description on how to implement a collaborative NPD method in a business environment.

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 1

The Collaborative New Product Development Process- its development, use and impact on today's innovation efforts

Ingvild SundbyDepartment of Product DesignNorwegian University of Science and Technology

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the development and use of the collaborative new product development (NPD) methods which have emerged in companies around the world for the past 20 years. The methods, such as Concurrent Engineering (CE) and Integrated Product Development (IPD), were introduced to achieve shorter time-to-market by gathering all of the involved departments at the initial phases of the process. This early collaboration is supposed to ensure better communication and planning, thus avoiding time-consuming remodeling later. Today, the collaborative efforts are characterized by cross-functional teams, strong customer focus and use of visualization tools. Results from implementation are promising, and leading innovators like Procter & Gamble, BMW, Toyota and IBM have all in the recent years made use of collaborative principles in their NPD processes. The paper ends with a discussion of what impact the collaborative methods have had on today's innovation efforts.

KEYWORDS

Collaboration, Innovation process, Cross-functionality, Concurrent Engineering (CE), Integrated Product Development (IPD), Dynamic Product Development (DPD), Design, Anthropology, User Experience.

I would also like to note that I have chosen to use the terms “collaborative new product development”, “collaborative efforts” and “collaborative innovation” when describing common features of the mentioned methods. These are however not commonly incorporated scientific terms, and are used for the cause of convenience in this paper.

2. THE COLLABORATIVE NPD METHODS

2.1 Background

How the West thinks about organization and innovation is influenced by Fredrick Taylor’s work in the beginning of the 20th century. Taylor's ideas on scientific management lead to a revolution in production time. The traditional way of one craftsman making all the features of a product himself, as well as maybe marketing and selling, was abandoned in advantage of separated divisions of labor which reduced time to market and cut manufacturing cost radically [1].

At about the same time as Taylor wrote his then innovative works, Thomas Edison set up his famous lab in Menlo Park in New Jersey[2]. This factory of inventions characterized by a free flow of information between scientists from different disciplines, produced 400 patents in 6 years, and can be seen as an early example of a successful cross-functional innovation process. It was however the Taylor way which prevailed in the hundred years to come. Most companies today are divided in different departments dealing with specialized tasks.

For some time though, weaknesses of division of labor have become increasingly evident[3]. In a world where everything happens so fast that change in production procedures may occur within a few weeks, rigid bureaucracy and operations are more of hindrances than boosters for growth. The expense of the time consuming “over-the-wall” approach where one department does their work on a project and then “throws it over the wall” to the next department in a fairly Tayloristic manner, is a problem that business leaders and researchers have become more and more aware of. The realization has lead to the development of new collaborative product development methods characterized by cross-functionality, customer focus, use of information- and communications technology

(ICT) and visualization techniques like rapid prototyping.

2.2 Concurrent Engineering (CE)

The western introduction to the collaborative innovation process may be related to Ford's development of the Ford Taurus in the early 80s which included aspects like cross-functional teams and geographical collocation. The process was inspired by development methods in the Japanese car industry which at the time was considered a serious threat to the American industry. Fortunately for Ford, the result of the new process was a highly holistic product which turned out to be the most sold car of its time in the US. The project was however 6 months late, and the manager got fired because of it. The next version underwent a lot more sequential based development process with strict time control, and although finishing according to plan, the car was by far not the same sale-success as its predecessor[4]. Consequently, one may say that the first collaboration effort at Ford was a mixed success.

In 1987, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) followed up with an extensive survey on the matter, naming the process Concurrent Engineering and created a definition[5]:

Concurrent engineering is a systematic approach to the integrated, concurrent design of products and their related processes, including manufacturing and support. This approach is intended to cause the developers, from the outset, to consider all elements of the product life cycle from conception through disposal, including quality, cost, schedule, and user requirements.

The DARPA-project resulted in wide implementation of concurrent engineering in government departments, like defense, aerospace and automobile. This initiated a chain reaction among the industries suppliers and subcontractors, and led to a wide recognition of the method in the U.S. [6]. Since then, the term has undergone several interpretations, and understandings of the method seems to vary quite a lot. In her book “Implementing concurrent design in small companies” [7], Susan Carlson Skalak suggests the following characteristics for describing the CE process:

• Customer focus and involvement• Early and continual involvement of suppliers in the

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 2

design process• Cross-functional, self-directed, empowered teams• Incremental sharing and use of information• Life-cycle focus• Systematic and integrated approach• Concurrent (parallel) design teams• Early use of X (DFX) tools• Use of modern tools such as CAE, CAD, CAM,

finite element analysis etc• Continuous improvement of all processes

All of these ingredients may help reduce development time. Early customer participation can lead to less time spent on support and service, thus making more room for new projects. Bringing in the suppliers will reveal important aspects of the needed components, and the use of visualization tools minimizes the time spent on reaching a common understanding of the product features.

The US Air Force conducted a study in 1987 showing that CE led to an average of 40% reduction in overall development time (figure 1). An interesting aspect of the survey, is the extended time spent on planning - about 10 times more than in a sequential one[8]. This is a fairly logical outcome for a process which aim is to make the later stages run as smooth and swift as possible. More time spent in the initial phases ensures less confusion and remodeling later.

Figure 1: Time difference between sequential engineering (SE) and concurrent engineering (CE) (from Skalak, 2002).

Hewlett Packard, Northrop, AT&T and IBM have all reported very positive results from using CE as a way to reduce cost of manufacturing and repair (table 1).

Company Name Cost-related Savings (Direct/Indirect)

Hewlett Packard: Instrument Division

42% reduction in manufacturing cost

Northrop Apprxm. 30% savings on bid on a major ticket item/product

AT&T At least 40% reduction in the cost of repair for new circuit pack production

IBM 45% reduction in product direct assembly labor hours

McDonnell Douglas Apprxm. 60% in savings on bid for reactor and missile projects

Deere and Company Apprxm. 30% reduction in development cost for construction equipment

Boeing Ballistic Systems Division

Reduction in labor rates by $28 per hour; reduction in cost by 30% to 40%

NCR 44% reduction in manufacturing costs with respect to NCR's 2760 electronic cash register

Cisco Systems Revenue increased from $27 million in 1989 to $70 million in 1990

Table 1: Savings in Cost Due to Concurrent Engineering in Various U.S. Companies (from Dhillon, 2002).

Despite huge reductions in developing time, the method has been criticized for not being very useful for radical innovation purposes. Some claim that even though bringing together engineers of different disciplines, the method rarely include non-technicians[9]. This is reflected in the mentioned examples which mostly consist of incremental internal improvements to manufacturing facilities and labor hours. Whether the process is truly cross-functional might therefore be questionable. It is however important to point out that this issue is somewhat disputed – some literature does in fact describe the CE-team as highly multidisciplined (like the mentioned customer involvement in Skalak’s list), with personnel from several different departments - including marketing and design[10]. This inconsistent use of terms might be due to the relatively young age of collaborative NPD research.

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 3

2.2 Integrated Product Development (IPD)

An other concept of collaborative new product development is Integrated Product Development (IPD). The method was introduced in the mid 80s as a reaction to the mainly engineering-based CE-methodology. In addition to engineers from different disciplines, people from other branches like marketing and design were also included in the process[11].

The Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) defines IPD as the following[12]:

A philosophy that systematically employs an integrated team effort from multiple functional disciplines to develop effectively and efficiently new products that satisfy customer needs.

As CE, the IPD process is identified as being parallel and activity based, as opposed to sequential and functional based, meaning that the people involved are more or less the same while the tasks at hand differ throughout the process. A rather well-known illustration is used at several technical universities for describing the parallel work of marketing, design, production and administration in an IPD process (Figure 2) [13]:

Figure 2: The IPD process (Fredy Olsson (1985) in Ottoson, 2005)

2.2.1 User focus

In relation with the increased cross-functional focus, the introduction of real users in the development process has also become more common. These efforts are characterized as “Human-centered design” which involves user involvement and testing at an early stage. Even though this today well-developed field might not be directly linked to the origin of the collaborative efforts, the user focus in these methods probably have helped increase awareness of usability issues in several

different industries. Today, most big companies making software and electronic devices, like IBM, Sun, HP and Sony, have usability labs where they bring in users at an early stage[14].

2.2.2 The Need for a Design Platform

As seen in figure 2, the work of the involved groups in the IPD process is based on the rather vague term “need”. The uncertainty of whose need this is, and who it is who identifies this need, is subject for criticism. Bjørn Baggerud et. Al. argue in the article “Design Strategy – A Starting Point for Integrated Product Development”[15] that the basis of each new product development should be a lot clearer formulated for everyone involved, consequently reducing the time consuming exploration of all aspects of the market, manufacturability and usability every time the company develops a new addition to their product portfolio. A thorough design platform at the basis of each new NPD process, developed by designers, researchers, manufacturer engineers and users together, might thus reduce the time to market even further (Figure 3). This universal basis can then be reused several times, only going through minor iterations based on experiences from the different development processes.

Figure 3: A better defined basis will reduce time-to-market further according to Baggerud et Al. (from Baggerud, 2006).

How much a company can rely on such a foundation is connected with the degree of radicality in the innovation. Makers of a newspaper for instance, will only have to change the contents from day to day, while a company with a disruptive new technology probably have to assess numeral additional aspects before starting the actual development. What a company includes in such a basis, is thus related to the

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 4

particular industry, the company strategy and the chosen production process.

2.2.3 The Stage-Gate© Model

Some IPD-processes include an external steering group which comes in between each stage and reviews the progress. This is to ensure that the development team stays on track and reaches the planned goals on time. Dependent on the assessment, the project might be taken to the next step, or have to go through further development at the current stage. One of the most known methods within this philosophy is the Stage-Gate© method which the creators claim is used in 73% of North American companies in 2006[16]. The method is also implemented in the telecom company Telenor in Norway[17].

Figure 4: The Stage Gate Model (from Cooper, 1995)

Some criticism of the method has surfaced, claiming that the steering group assessment halts the project for an unnecessarily long time, making the process abrupt and discontinuous [18]. A closer integration of management in the process might be a solution for avoiding such situations.

2.3 Dynamic Product Development (DPD)

One of the very last contributions to new product development methods is Dynamic Product Development.

The term was coined in 1997 when a project was conducted at Halmstad University in Sweden with the aim of developing the IPD process further [19].. As the methods of CE and IPD, the DPD-principles include strong customer focus and the use of visualization tools. One difference though, is the use of an internal concept group working as the steering group in order to avoid delays resulting from external interference. Furthermore, the method is highly iterative (hence the term 'dynamic') and allows for fundamental concept changes at later stages in the development process. Concept changes after the planning phase are not normally considered a part of

CE and IPD, and creators of DPD, like the Swedish researcher Stig Ottoson, consider them therefore as being too rigid for innovation purposes. This rigidity can lead to a result which isn't meeting current market demands since these might have changed after the first stages are finished. DPD, they claim, is thus a better way for ensuring market success[20].

A natural concern is of course to what extent such late iterations will slow down time-to-market, and thus reducing the competitive advantage. The possibility of changing the terms of the production basis long after the planning phase is over, stands also in stark opposition to the thorough initial stage of concurrent engineering as well as Baggerud’s arguments of having a consistent design platform forming the basis of any development project. The conflicting views introduce important questions regarding the interface between the development phase and the production phase. When should the collaborative efforts of the development team be succeeded by streamlined production execution? A possible answer to this requires considerations which exceed the scope of this paper. Still, having some sort of well-founded platform regarding the innovation strategy can hardly be considered as too rigid for any company – even if it should contain the possibility of fundamental concept changes close up to market launch.

4. A COMPARISON OF THE METHODS

Based on the descriptions of the different collaborative methods, a summarized comparison of the principles is in place (Table 2):

We see that for the most parts, the methods are quite similar, with cross-functional teams, customer focus and use of visualization tools. The issue of steering groups was introduced mainly with the Stage-Gate© Model and is thus not much mentioned as a tool for the CE process. The biggest difference between CE and the two other is probably the technological focus and the lack of extensive use of customer representatives in the process. DPD differs from the two others by allowing change after the planning stage is over. As mentioned before, there is some difference in literature describing the characteristics of the different methods. The table should therefore not be seen as a final and complete description of the

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 5

methods, but more as a guide to some of the identified issues.

CE IPD DPD

Members R&D personnel of different backgrounds

R&D, marketing, design, customer

R&D, marketing, design, customer

Customer focus

Yes, some participation (debated)

Yes, active participation

Yes, active participation

Process Activity based

Activity based

Activity based

Tasks Internal improvement

NPD NPD

Steering group

- Yes, external Yes, internal

Visualization Tools

CAD CAD CAD, drawing

Iterations Yes, but not after planning stage

Yes, but not after planning stage

Yes, all the way until product launch

Table 2: A comparison of the methods

This paper will not discuss in detail which of the methods is “the best” in an innovation context, as this is highly related to the particular company in question. However, aspects like organization culture, technology resources, financial objectives, innovation radicality and composition of disciplines within the company should most probably be taken into consideration when developing a collaborative innovation strategy.

3.1 Success Factors

Whichever the strategy a company chooses to go with, there seems to be certain common success factors for the collaborative NPD process. For instance, literature on the various methods repeatedly mentions management support and trust as an important factor for ensuring successful implementation[21]. Otherwise, the team might be needlessly delayed when waiting for management decisions before being able to commence. A suggested solution is to include a management representative in the team. Management encouragement seems also to be important for making

employees support the process, which also is reported as decisive for project success [22]. Other success factors include specific project goals and a common understanding of the principles of a collaborative method within the team. Some research has revealed cases where marketing has consulted R&D only after the product specification had been finalized “in order to avoid any arguments from R&D about how to do it”[23]– possibly causing serious process delay and flaws in the final outcome. Comprehensive and continuous training in collaborative methods is regarded as necessary means for preventing such situations.

In addition to the social and cultural factors, mentions of access to communication tools occur frequently as important ingredients for an effective project execution. This seems especially needed if the team consists of members located in different parts of the world, which nowadays is not uncommon. In order to secure free flowing collaboration between the members, proper communication systems need to be implemented. All participants should be well acquainted with the tools, either from previous use or training in connection with the project at hand[24].An issue to be noted though, is the need for always meeting face to face in the initial stages of any collaborative process. Modern communication tools, however advanced, cannot alone ensure the necessary trust between group members for conducting a successful project[25].

4. CASE STUDIES

Variations of collaborative product development processes are currently used in several different industries. Few companies describe their innovation process explicatively as CE, IPD or DPD, but the core principles of the collaborative methods seem to be widely employed in today’s innovation efforts. Here are a few examples of how big companies have made collaboration a key issue in their modern innovation processes.

4.1 Procter & Gamble

In 2000 when Procter & Gamble, the world’s largest consumer packaged goods company, hadn’t managed to introduce a single new product line in 17 years as well as facing a serious stock collapse, radical measures were needed [26]. The new CEO A.G. Lafley’s solution

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 6

was the Connect & Develop method which included goals like acquiring 50% of all innovations from outside the company, and ensuring broader focus on design-thinking as a way to innovate. The result is several measures very much resembling a collaborative design process. After 2000, designers are placed in every business unit, and a series of 10 week cross-functional workshops have been implemented for the purpose of creating new brands [27]. One of the results of the company’s cross-pollinating efforts is their Crest Whitestrips from their oral care unit. Traditionally only including dental experts, this process also gathered people with knowledge of safe bleaching from the company’s laundry division. Today, the product grosses over $200 million per year[28]. Other examples of similar collaborative efforts include the new Mr. Clean Autodry[29] and the Allessi-inspired Swiffer version [30].

Because the company is distributed all over the world, the organization has implemented a communication system called “AskMe”where anyone can post their problems and receive answers from anyone anywhere in the organization. The application is necessary for integrating all different levels within the organization, both organizationally and geographically[31].

Also, as a way to introduce cross-functionality on a higher level, the company launched a Board of Designers in 2003, consisting of design chiefs from other design driven companies. The board meets every four months to assess new product line concepts and to provide advice for new design strategic measures [32].

The measures implemented since 2000 seems to have worked. In 2004, the company reported a 17 percent rise in volume and a 19 percent rise in sales[33]- which is quite impressive for a company of a 22 billion dollar size. The company relates its recent success entirely to the new innovation efforts [34].

4.2 BMW and Toyota

The car industry has traditionally been especially vulnerable to the difference between rational engineer thinking and creative designer traits, but as the head designer of BMW Chris Bangle states in an interview with BusinessWeek Magazine[35]:

“…engineers do a better job when they work with designers, and designers do a better job when they work with engineers.”

At BMW, every new development process starts with 200-300 staffers from different departments teaming up at the company’s Research and Innovation center in Münich, Germany for up to three years[36]. The center is designed with teamwork in mind, enabling easy interaction and communication between R&D and marketing, and between line workers and management. According to brand chief designer Adrian van Hooydonk, these close cross-functional collaborations is decisive for speeding up the development process and making better cars[37].

On the other side of the world, Toyota calls its version of collaborative product development process Oobeya, which basically means «big open office». Every month 2 years before the car goes into production, everyone involved in the process, designers, engineers, marketers and managers, meets to discuss their concerns and solutions. This has lead to increased communication and holistic understanding, reportedly saving the company billions in more logical distribution and production systems[38]. In relation to this, it is important to note that the Asian innovation process has been characterized by collaborative efforts long before the introduction of concurrent engineering in Western companies – a fact that has been attributed to the traditional Japanese respect for groups and community[39].

4.3 IBM

At IBM, the company with the highest number of US patents in the world[40], integrated product development has been implemented fully since 1998 [41]. The success of the implementation is attributed to executive support, broad communication, customer focus, cross-functionality, and benchmarking key targets against the industry. The company seems to see collaborative efforts as an important ingredient in its future innovation processes. Senior Vice President Ginni Rometty stated at a press-conference in March 2006 [42]:

“At its core, the nature of innovation is changing. It's global, multi-disciplinary, and collaborative.”

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 7

How the company tends to deal with these excepted changes remains to be seen, but for now the implementation of new initiatives like “jam-sessions” gathering thousands of IBM employees worldwide for common brainstorming online, may signal increased focus on collaborative efforts. This notion is strengthened by the fact that the company has set aside $100 million dollars for development of ideas originating from these online collaborations [43].

4.4 Apple

Interestingly, Apple, identified as the most innovative company in the world by BusinessWeek Magazine [44], does not seem to have any formal implementation of a collaborative cross-disciplined system. In fact, most of their market success is in most cases attributed to one individual; CEO Steve Jobs [45]. This quite un-collaborative trait is however not quite representative for the company's actual innovation efforts. For instance, the core design team is in fact said to be working closely with engineers, marketers and outside suppliers throughout the development process [46]. The reason why the company hasn’t implemented any formal efforts is probably due to the relatively small size of its development team which unlike most other large corporations’ development staff works in the very same room. In that way, Apple ensures close collaboration without strenuous efforts.

The example from Apple might also be the reason why it is harder to find case studies of collaborative efforts from smaller companies. As a result of the geographical and organizational distance in larger companies, keeping natural collaboration intact might be a challenge, thus making efforts to conquer these issues a lot more visible. Further research about when a company should start considering such a program would probably be of great use in this context.

An other notable issue regarding the case examples, is the high representation rate of American companies. Studies about collaborative innovation efforts in other parts of the world is also hard to come by. This might be due to a recent trend in the American innovation environment, but it is important to note, that as with the Toyota and BMW examples, the collaborative way of working is not exclusive to the US. However; when choosing to implement a collaborative innovation process in a non-American company based on the

success stories from P&G and IBM, different cultural aspects should be taken into consideration.

5. SKEPTICISM TOWARDS COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS

There exist also skeptic sentiments towards the collaborative NPD process. The human factor designer Donald Norman argues in his book Emotional Design that the design method of collaboration and iteration might lead to successful products, but not “great” ones [47]:

“I still maintain that an iterative, human-centered approach works well for behavioral design, but it is not necessarily appropriate for either the visceral or the reflective ide. When it comes to these levels, the iterative method is design by compromise, by committee, and by consensus. This guarantees a result that is safe and effective, but invariably dull.

(...) If you want a successful product, test and revise. If you want a great product, one that can change the world, let it be driven by someone with a clear vision. The latter presents more financial risk, but is the only path to greatness.”

The concern of collaboration sometimes leading to mediocre products as a result of consensus has also been expressed by Western businesses when collaborating with Japanese industry. “Consensus-management” is a term often used when describing the Japanese new product development style [48]. The country’s success as innovator seems however to prove some of these concerns wrong. The chief designer of Rover, Richard Woolley, who has worked several years in the Japanese car industry, describes the cultural differences as follows [49]:

“The Japanese work superbly well as a team. You can’t beat them. They are all going in the same direction and you get the impression that Honda, Nissan, Toyota are like unstoppable machines… whereas we all tend to pull in different directions and tend to think of different ways of doing things, which is a great strength but also a great weakness.”

Even though the Japanese seem to manage the collaborative culture quite well, it is important to stress

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 8

the significance of trust within a team so that disagreements are dealt with through constructive dialogue as opposed to mediocre consensus. As Norman states, a collaborative process works fine for securing good products, but might also lead to results which are “invariably dull”. In other words, being able to disagree might be one of the most important factors for ensuring a successful result on the basis of the collaborative NPD process.

6. THE IMPACT OF THE COLLABORATIVE NPD PROCESS

How has the collaborative innovation process influenced the way companies innovate today?

Since the early experiments with Concurrent Engineering, some fundamental views of the business world have changed. From the intense focus on tangible goals of cost- and time reduction, we see an increasing concern for the intangible values like the one of the complete user experience – that is how a person thinks a product defines her and makes her feel when using it. These are factors which more and more are regarded as decisive for buying decisions.

The new views of business thinkers such as management-guru Tom Peters strengthen the notion of a change in corporate values. In his book Re-Imagine [50], Peters argues strongly that businesses need to stop worrying about measurable goals like cost and time, and instead start focusing on experience and added value. Furthermore, Peters vividly advocates the new “Cross-Functional World” which he describes as seamless, cooperative, communicative and multidisciplinary as opposed to the divided, competitive, rigid and specialized world of yesterday.

Even though originally having the sole aim of reducing time-to-market, one might wonder if not the collaborative methods through their cross-functionality have contributed to the new sentiments. After all, it was not until the concurrent engineering efforts in the 80s that close collaboration between different disciplines started to occur as a formal tool in American NPD processes, thus paving the way for non-business-related world views and opinions. As today's businesses seem to focus more and more on intangible goals, as opposed to the old aims of reduced time and cost, the cross-functional aspect of the collaborative methods appears to be given new

significance as a tool for ensuring the advocated complete user experience.

One of the perhaps greatest examples of a product in full accordance with the new goals of NPD, is the iPod from Apple. When launching the mp3-player in 2001, business analysts focused on the measurable features like storage room and battery life. Some didn't think the player would be a success due to the relatively high price. Cnet News reported the following at the launch in 2001[51]:

Stephen Baker, an analyst at NPD Intelect, said that the iPod will likely stand out for its large storage capacity but predicted that the device may have trouble digging out a niche in the market.

We all know how wrong this statement turned out to be. Despite being late, expensive and not very radical in a technological sense, the disruptive new user experience resulting from a clever mix of design, marketing and technology, was the attribute which created the success. Accordingly, one can say that the iPod-story shows the importance of multidisciplinary collaborations in the modern innovation process.

6.1 New Disciplines of Innovation

Two disciplines which are experiencing growing respect in the business community because of their knowledge of user experience are the designers and the anthropologists. According to design thinkers, a better use of design knowledge will by focusing on users, creativity and experience in a broader sense, bring a company's innovation efforts to a higher level [52]. Corporate measures like the board of designers at P&G, seem to show that their arguments have started to be taken seriously.

As for anthropologists, their know-how of observing users in their natural habitat, and so figuring out their real needs, is more and more regarded as a valuable tool for making more complete products and increasing brand loyalty[53].

One of the leading thought leaders on innovation today, the design consultancy IDEO, uses both designers and anthropologists actively in their development processes as their knowledge is regarded as decisive for making products with a complete user experience. The company has earned more design

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 9

awards than any other of its kind, and its portfolio contains revolutionary products like the first mouse for Apple and the first laptop computer in the world. Their work studio is characterized by a cross-functional mix of several different disciplines, and set up a lot like Thomas Edison's factory once was- keeping communication flowing free among the staff [54].

The company stresses the importance of people with other interests than their specialized field (called «T-shaped-people»). This secures an environment with empathy for other professions, experiences and view points, and thus a better environment for new ideas. On these accounts, one can probably describe IDEO as a company with an implicit cross-functional identity. Their philosophies have spread widely because of their many projects with American corporations, and the company is today regarded as one of the most innovative consultancies in the world – possibly being one of the strongest catalysts for the new collaborative attitude.

6.2 Challenges

Even though we see a growing focus on cross-functionality, it is important to note that the vast majority of companies don’t seem to have implemented such efforts in their innovation process. The reason is probably the perceived culture differences between disciplines - leading to collaboration-difficulties between the groups. In her article “Innovation – What's design got to do with it?”[55], Bettina von Stamm describes the differences between designers and managers:

“Where managers tend to focus on profits and returns, designers focus on product and service quality; while managers are in for survival, designers prefer reform; where managers think linearly, designers think laterally; managers are serialists, problemoriented, and cautious, designers are holistic, solutions-led, and experimental. In short, while managers are adaptive, designers are innovative.”

These radical differences represents a true challenge when trying to bridge the gap between the professions. However, examples like the cross-functionality in the case studies, the statements from Peters and the experiences of IDEO, may signal the beginning of a broader use of non-business professions in the common innovation process. Many design schools and

a few business schools, have also introduced some interdisciplinary classes in the curriculum, thus hoping to gain better communication and understanding between the disciplines in the future [56, 57].

6.3 The Chicken or the Egg?

When exploring the link between the rise of the collaborative method and the increased focus on the intangible knowledges of disciplines like anthropology and design, a natural question is of course which came first; the enhanced focus on intangibles values, and then the introduction of new disciplines, or the introduction of new disciplines as a result of the collaborative process thus paving the way for increased focus on intangible values. Most likely, it is a combination of both, where the two factors strengthen and gain support from each other. Nevertheless; without the early collaborative movement of the 80s, the non-business disciplines would most probably have a lot harder time breaking into the innovation processes today. At the same time; without a complete multidisciplinary and collaborative team, today's aim for the complete user experience is probably almost impossible to reach.

7. CONCLUSION

Although there are evidently disputed differences between the new collaborative NPD processes, the trend of cross-functionality seems to be an established feature in many of today's innovation efforts. The initial aim of reducing time-to-market is still intact, but has also been supplemented by goals like making better products in accordance with real user needs. Examples like the one of iPod, strengthens the notion of the importance of the complete user experience, making a product's success not only related to the tangible factors of time- and cost. This is why the collaborative efforts, by its opening up to other disciplines, can be a powerful tool when aiming for successful products in today's market place.

As seen from this paper, there are certain aspects regarding the collaborative methods which might benefit from further research:

• What criteria should decide a company's collaborative innovation strategy?

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 10

• What cultural aspects might influence a collaborative innovation process?

• When should the collaborative efforts of the development team be succeeded by streamlined production execution?

• When and at what size should a company implement tools to ease the collaboration efforts?

• How should the world of business and the world of other disciplines go about to create better understanding and collaboration with each other?

In addition to these issues, there is a need for establishing distinct criteria for the different collaborative methods of CE, IPD and DPD, so that a company more easily can decide on which suits their needs the best. The current confusion surrounding these criteria is probably a reflection of a field in constant growth and development.

REFERENCES

[1] N. P. Mouzelis, Organisation and Bureaucracy. An analysis of Modern Theories, Chicago, Illinois: Aldine Publ. Company, 1973.

[2] A. Hargadon and R. I. Sutton, “Building an Innovation Factory,” in Harvard Business Review on Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2001, pp. 72-73.

[3] C. Comerer and B. Uttal in L. Trygg, “Concurrent Engineering Practices in Selected SwedishCompanies: A Movement or an Activity of the Few?” Journal of Product Innovation Management, no. 10, pp. 403-415, 1993.

[4] A. Shenhar et. Al, A New Framework for Strategic Project Management, Stevens Institute of Technology, November 26, 2000.

[5] Insitute of Defense Analysis, Report R-338 in S. Skalak, Implementing Concurrent Engineering in Small Companies. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc, 2002, p. 4.

[6] B.S. Dhillon: Engineering and Technology Management Tools and Applications. Norwood, MA: Artech House, 2002.

[7] S. Skalak, Implementing Concurrent Engineering in Small Companies. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc, 2002, p.5.

[8] US Air Force R&M 2000 Process Study Report in S. Skalak, Implementing Concurrent Engineering in Small Companies. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc, 2002.

[9] S. Ottoson: “Dynamic product development – DPD”, Technovation 24, pp. 207-217, 2004.

[10] N. Bhuiyan et. Al: «Implementing Concurrent Engineering,» Research Technology Management, vol. 49, no. 1; pp 38-43, Jan/Feb 2006.

[11] S. Ottoson: Handbook in innovation management – Dynamic Business and Product Development, Tervix AB, 2006.

[12] “The PDMA Glossary for New Product Development” [Online document] 2006 [cited Oct. 16 2006] Available Online: <http://www.pdma.org/library/glossary.html?PHPSESSID=ac3f4c91ea8f17c6e3f4c971d66e8cd2>

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 11

[13] S. Ottoson: Handbook in innovation management – Dynamic Business and Product Development, Tervix AB, 2006.

[14] H. W. Bjelland, Design for og med brukere, Institutt for Produktdesign, NTNU, September 2006.

[15] B. Baggerud, R. Nesbakken and A.Liem ”Design Strategy – A Starting Point for Integrated Product Development”, presented at NordDesign, Reykjavik, Iceland, August 16-18, 2006.

[16] The Stage-Gate© Process, The Product Development Institute Inc. [Online document], date not disclosed[cited Oct. 7, 2006] Available Online: <http://www.prod-dev.com/pdf/20_years.pdf>

[17] B. A. Davidsen:”On the path to a new product process”, Telektronikk 2, 2004.

[18] S. Ottoson: “Dynamic product development – DPD”, Technovation 24, pp. 207-217, 2004.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] N. Bhuiyan et Al: “Implementing Concurrent Engineering”, Research Technology Management, vol. 49, no.1, pp. 38-43, 2006.

[22] W. E. Souder: “Managing Relations Between R&D and Marketing in New Product Development Projects”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 6-19, 1988.

[23] Ibid.

[24] N. Bhuiyan et Al: “Implementing Concurrent Engineering”, Research Technology Management, vol. 49, no.1, pp. 38-43, 2006.

[25] T. Kelley, The Ten Faces of Innovation, Doubleday, 2005.

[26] R. Stringer: “How to Manage Radical Innovation”, California Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 4, p.70-88, 2000.

[27] J. Reingold: “The Interpreter”, Fast Company, Issue 95, p.61, 2005.

[28] T. Kelley, The ten faces of innovation, Doubleday 2005.

[29] Ibid.

[30] M. Conlin, “Champions of Innovation”, Inside Innovation, BusinessWeek, June 2006.

[31] R. D. Hof, “At P&G, It's "360-Degree Innovation"”, BusinessWeek Online [Online Document], Oct. 11, 2004 [Cited Oct. 15, 2006], Available online: <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_41/b3903463.htm>

[32] J. Reingold: “The Interpreter”, Fast Company, Issue 95, p.61, 2005.

[33] Anonymus, “Procter&Gamble’s innovation success”, Strategic Direction, Vol. 21, Issue 7, pp. 11-13, 2005.

[34] L. Huston and N. Sakkab, ”Connect and Develop. Inside Procter&Gamble’s New Model for Innovation”, Harvard Business Review, March 2006.

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 12

[35] B. Breen, “BMW: Driven by Design”, Fast Company, Issue 62, p.123, August 2002.

[36] J. McGregor et. Al, “The World’s most Innovative Companies”, BusinessWeek Online [Online Document], April 24, 2006 [cited Oct. 16, 2006], Available online: <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_17/b3981401.htm?chan=search>.

[37] G. Edmondson, «An Interview with BMW's Chief Designer», [Online document], Newsweek, October 16, 2006 [cited Oct. 17, 2006]. Available online: <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005076.htm>.

[38] F. Warner, “In a word, Toyota drives for innovation”, Fast Company, Issue 61, Aug 2002.

[39] N. Ohtani and S. Duke, Japanese Design and Development. Hampshire, England: The Design Council, Gower, 1997.

[40] “IBM leads the pack in patents”, IBM homepage [Online document], [cited Oct. 15, 2006], Available online: <www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing>.

[41] J. Dickerson, “Improve Product Development Using IPD”, Quality Progress; vol. 39, no. 8, p. 96, 2006.

[42] S. Hamm, ”Thinking the Future, with IBM”, BusinessWeek, March 9, 2006.

[43] Ibid

[44] J. McGregor et. Al, “The World’s most Innovative Companies”, BusinessWeek Online [Online Document], April 24, 2006 [cited Oct. 16, 2006], Available online: <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_17/b3981401.htm?chan=search>.

[45] P.Burrows, Who Is Jonathan Ive?, BusinessWeek Online [Online document], Sept. 25, 2006 [cited Oct. 15, 2006], Available online: <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_39/b4002414.htm?>.

[46] Ibid.

[47] D. Norman, Emotional Design, New York, NY: Basic Books, December 2003, pp 96-98.

[48] N. Ohtani and S. Duke, Japanese Design and Development. Hampshire, England: The Design Council, Gower, 1997.

[49] Ibid, p. 23.

[50] T. Peters, Re-Imagine, London, UK: Dorling Kindersly Limited, 2003.

[51] I. Fried, “Apple’s iPod spurs mixed reactions”, Cnet News [Online document], Oct. 23, 2001 [cited Oct. 19, 2006], Available online: <http://news.com.com/Apples+iPod+spurs+mixed+reactions/2100-1040_3-274821.html>

[52] B. Borja de Mozota, Design Managament, New York, NY: Allworth Press, 2003.

[53] T. Kelley, The Ten Faces of Innovation, New York, NY: Doubleday, 2005.

[54] A. Hargadon and R. I. Sutton, “Building an Innovation Factory,” in Harvard Business Review on Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2001. pp. 72-73.

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 13

[55] B. von Stamm, ”Innovation – What’s Design Got to Do with It?”, Design Management Review, Vol. 15, Iss. 1, p.10-19, 2004, p. 13.

[56] N. Bhan: “While You Were Out: Changes in the Global Design Industry”, Core77 [Online document], 2004 [cited Oct. 19, 2006], <http://www.core77.com/reactor/12.04_niti_bhan.asp>

[57] J. Merritt and L. Lavelle: “Tomorrow's B-School? It Might Be A D-School”, Businessweek Online [Online document], Aug. 1, 2005 [cited Oct. 16, 2006], Available online: <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_31/b3945418.htm>

FIGURES

1: From S. Skalak 2002, Implementing Concurrent Engineering in Small Companies. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc, 2002, p.6.

2: From F. Olsson (1985) in S. Ottoson, Handbook in innovation management – Dynamic Business and Product Development, Tervix AB, 2006, p.166.

3: From B. Baggerud, R. Nesbakken, A.Liem: ”Design Strategy – A Starting Point for Integrated Product Development”, presented at NordDesign, Reykjavik, Iceland, August 16-18, 2006, p. 3.

4: From R. G. Cooper: “How to launch a new product successfully” CMA Management Magazine, vol. 69, no.8, pp. 20-23, Oct 1995, p. 20.

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 14

The Collaborative New Product Development Process 15