Structuring a new product development process portfolio using decoupling thinking

Figures & data

Figure 1. The EDP framework (adapted from Gosling, Hewlett, and Naim 2017, 412).

Table 1. Case companies and sources of evidence.

Case and Country	Founded	Products	Employees^1	Turnover thousand EUR (€)^1	Company size^1	Source of evidence
						No. of interviews and respondents (R)		Archival documents
TurbineCo, Sweden	1913	Gas turbines	2597	1,201,030	Very large	2	Product developer (R1)	Stage-gate models, process charts and process descriptions, company webpage searches, workshop documents, list of codes and standards
							Purchasing manager (R2)
							Demand planner, sales & operations planning (R3)
						2^2	Product developer (R1)
LuminaireCo, Sweden	1943	Luminaires	586	137,678	Large	1	Project leader for product development (R4)	In and out phasing documents (generational shifts), stage-gate models, process charts and process descriptions, company webpage searches, workshop documents
						1	Logistics manager (R5)
							Master planner & planning team leader (R6)
							Manufacturing manager (R7)
						1	Customer design manager (R8)
						1	Project leader for product development (R4)
							Logistics manager (R5)
FurnitureCo, Wales	1998	Furniture and task seating	361	75,817	Large	2	New product introduction manager (R9)	Company webpage searches
							Continuous improvement manager (R10)
						1	Continuous improvement manager (R10)
PumpCo, Sweden	1967^3	Hydraulic pumps and motors	230	36,464^4	Medium	2	Inbound/outbound manager (R11)	Stage-gate models, process charts and process descriptions, company webpage searches, workshop documents
							Product developer (R12)
FoilCo, Sweden	1945^3	Plastic foils	107	25,665	Medium	2	Product manager (R13)	Stage-gate models, company webpage searches, process charts and process descriptions, organization chart, company presentation
ChimneyCo, Wales	1997	Prefabricated chimneys and brick arches	70	5110	Medium	3	Product development and marketing manager (R14)	Stage-gate models, process charts and process descriptions, workshop documents, product hierarchy diagrams
						1	Managing director (R15)
						1	Production director (R16)

¹ The information concerning the number of employees, turnover and company size are from the Amadeus (2018) database, where the company size is based on the European Commission’s (2018) definition.

² The interviews were conducted using video chat.

³ The companies were founded earlier, but this was the year they started producing the type of products that are currently manufactured.

⁴ The turnover presented here is an estimate for the specific site studied in this research. This is 50% of the turnover for the whole Swedish organization.

Note: See Appendix 1 for the list of acronyms and their meanings.

Table 2. Research protocol for the case studies.

Stages	Research activities and key areas of discussion
Case selection and initiation	Identify each company based on the selection criteria. Gather an initial sense of NPD processes. Discuss any potential interest in decoupling concepts.
Stage 1 – Establish scope and background	General introductions and explain purpose. Discuss general developments in the case company in relation to NPD.
Stage 2 – Presentation of initiatives	Present the EDP framework, either electronically or through printed handouts. Provide an opportunity for the interviewees to register their first impressions and ask any initial questions. Give the case company the opportunity to present or explain any structures that they may have in place for NPD.
Stage 3 – Discussion of frameworks and structures	Are the engineering subclasses recognizable, understandable and complete? How do the NPD processes in the case company relate to the framework? How far do individual customers penetrate NPD activities?
Stage 4 – Discussion of implications	How do ongoing NPD activities relate to the EDP framework? Where do different products and processes from the case company start and finish with respect to the engineering activities outlined in the framework?
Stage 5 – Site tour	Relate back to other stages and, if possible, directly observe relevant products and projects for the NPD processes discussed. Further clarify any details in relation to CODPs and the implications.
Stage 6 – Analysis	The research team discusses the findings from different data types. Visualization of NPD processes. Offer the interviewees the opportunity for further comments and clarifications.

Note: See Appendix 1 for the list of acronyms and their meanings.

Figure 2. The case companies’ NPD processes positioned into the EDP framework. Note: See Appendix 1 for the list of acronyms and their meanings.

Figure 3. Emergent NPD processes linked to engineering decoupling points. Note: See Appendix 1 for the list of acronyms and their meanings.

Table 3. Summary of the case companies’ contextual factors and NPD processes.

Company	Context	NPD process	Outcome	Lead times/midpoint^1 and time interval
TurbineCo	Customers request shorter time-to-customer without any compromise regarding customization. TurbineCo is therefore considering modularizing the customer-specific options and segmenting the market to handle the requirements for both customization and reduced time-to-customer.	FDTD	New software codes, technology, calculation and optimization methods and new production methods	6–24 months/15 months ± 9 months
		FDPD/CoDPD (major)	New standard or bespoke products	FD: 60–84 months/72 months ± 12 months CoD: 12–24 months/18 months ± 6 months
		FDPD/CoDPD (medium)	Reconfigured or customized products based on existing standard products	FD: 2–24 months/13 months ± 11 months CoD: 2–12 months/7 months ± 5 months
		FDPD/CoDPD (minor)	Outlined design, reconfigured or customized individual components	FD: 2–24 weeks/13 weeks ± 11 weeks CoD: 2–24 weeks/13 weeks ± 11 weeks
		CoDPD package	Customized package	2–10 months/6 months ± 4 months
LuminaireCo	The market and LuminaireCo have undergone and are still undergoing a technology transition, resulting in a generational shift (i.e. the need for updating and redesigning the current product portfolio), as well as new technological opportunities for designing and developing new products.	FDTD	New technology	1 month–several years/N/A
		FDPD (major)	New standard products	12–18 months/15 months ± 3 months
		FDPD (medium)	Reconfigured standard products	8 months/8 months ± 0 month
		FDPD (minor)		4–5 months/4.5 months ± 0.5 month
		CoDPD (major)	Bespoke products	10–20 weeks/15 weeks ± 5 weeks
		CoDPD (minor)	Customizations of standard products	1 week/1 week ± 0 week
FurnitureCo	Some of the current challenges faced by FurnitureCo are the extent to which it should focus on ‘shifting the market’ versus ‘following the market’, making progress in capturing the customer’s voice and meeting the needs of different generations (e.g. baby boomers and millennials). FurnitureCo finds it desirable to use a more customer-driven approach. However, to realize this, FurnitureCo needs a more strategic approach to customer interaction, including the management of interaction points with suppliers and different internal teams in the NPD process.	FDPD	New standard products	6–12 months/9 months ± 3 months
		CoDPD (major)	Bespoke products based on standard products	1–18 months/9.5 months ± 8.5 months
		CoDPD (minor)	Customizations of standard products	A few weeks to many months, to a large extent dependent on the project’s complexity/N/A
PumpCo	Due to a combination of market maturity and technology maturity, PumpCo is considering other innovative solutions, such as identifying other areas for application, as well as customizing different solutions.	FDTD	New technology, production processes and calculation and simulation methods	To a large extent dependent on the project’s complexity/N/A
		FDPD	New and reconfigured standard products	6–36 months/21 months ± 15 months
		CoDPD	Customizations of standard products	2 hours–6 months/≈ 3 months ± 2.99 months
FoilCo	Both the technology and the production process are mature. FoilCo has therefore become more CoD and customizes its products for specific customers, estimating that 85% of all projects are customer driven.	FDTD	New technology and production methods	6–60 months/33 months ± 27 months
		FDPD/CoDPD	New standard products with options, as well as bespoke and customized products	FD: 1–38 weeks/19.5 weeks ± 18.5 weeks CoD: 1–32 weeks/16.5 weeks ± 15.5 weeks
ChimneyCo	Traditionally, ChimneyCo has had a CoD focus. Due to a combination of market maturity and advances in technology, it decided to embark on larger and speculative, marketplace innovations. It wishes to continue with a combination of FD and CoD processes, acknowledging the need for speculative market-driving innovations. Company changes are undertaken to include the formation of cross-functional teams, formalized NPD stage gates and management systems.	FDPD	New standard products with options	6–24 months/15 months ± 9 months
		CoDPD (major)	Bespoke products based on standard products	6–7 weeks/6.5 weeks ± 0.5 weeks
		CoDPD (minor)	Customizations of standard products	4 weeks/4 weeks ± 0 week

¹ The midpoint is calculated as the average value of a process’ shortest and longest lead times.

Note: See Appendix 1 for the list of acronyms and their meanings.

Figure 4. A structured NPD process portfolio. Note: See Appendix 1 for the list of acronyms and their meanings.

Gosling, J., B. Hewlett, and M. M. Naim. 2017. “Extending Customer Order Penetration Concepts to Engineering Designs.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37(4): 402–422. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-07-2015-0453.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Amadeus. 2018. “Amadeus: A Database of Comparable Financial Information for Public and Private Companies across Europe.” Accessed February 9, 2018. https://amadeus.bvdinfo.com.

 Google Scholar