19March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

Systematization of Recurrent New Product Development Management Problems

Janaina M.H. Costa, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyHenrique Rozenfeld, University of So Paulo, Brazil

Creusa Sayuri Tahara Amaral, University of So Paulo, BrazilRicardo M. Marcacinit, University of So Paulo, Brazil

Solange Oliveira Rezende, University of So Paulo, Brazil

and Morgan (2011) concluded that there is still a vast field for improvement that can be implemented in NPD so that companies can benefit from the entire potential of this process.

Engineering management is a knowledge area that includes product development and process improvement. Since NPD is a business process that involves many areas in companies, this research adopts the Business Process Management (BPM) approach to support the improvement of NPD. This approach has become a best practice for helping companies sustain competitive advantages (Hung, 2006) by promoting the alignment of business operations with strategic priorities. This enables organizations to improve their processes constantly throughout improvement projects, maintaining a holistic vision of their business.

BPM represents a more systematic form of the Plan, Do, Check, and Act (PDCA) concept. It is a cyclic approach comprised of the phases of strategy definition; diagnosis and modeling of as-is and to-be situations; and the definition, selection, and development of improvement projects. Bucher and Winter (2009) affirm that organizational excellence through process-oriented management, takes place in different stages, that different approaches or aspects thereof are predominant at different levels of organizational development, and that almost each and every organization has developed its own approach to BPM. The application of BPM for the improvement of NPD processes is discussed by Costa and Rozenfeld (2007).

This article focuses on the diagnostic phase, which is usually supported by a cause-and-effect analysis. A well-known method for this analysis is the Current Reality Tree (CRT) (Goldratt, 1994). The CRT is a systematic method employed to identify unstructured business problems (Watson et al., 2007) from which NPD improvement projects can be outlined. A series of problems, called undesirable effects and root causes, and the corresponding successfully implemented improvement projects to eliminate them, serve as lessons learned to be potentially reused in defining actions to improve an NPD process. The application of the CRT method in NPD is valid since, according to Letens (2011) many NPD problems are, systemic and structural rather than partial and partial, meaning that generally it is not worth trying to solve a specific problem without having understood the other problems and factors associated with it; however, to date, most organizations fail to take advantage of this potential. Unfortunately, companies do not apply this method due to the perception that the logic and construction rules of the CRT are somehow intimidating, difficult, and time consuming (Doggett, 2005).

This article has several aims. The first aim is to identify recurrent problems from NPD diagnoses conducted in several companies, focusing on the synthesis of cause-and-effect analysis of NPD processes. In addition, categories are proposed to classify the problems in order to help NPD practitioners identify

Research Manuscript accepted by Associate Editor Daim

Abstract: One of the ways to improve the New Product Development (NPD) process is to eliminate the problems that arise over years of practice. This article describes the systematization of recurrent NPD management problems. The main NPD problems were found to be recurrent; hence, the systematization resulting from this study allows for the identification of NPD areas requiring special attention from both practitioners and researchers. This identification enables researchers to define new areas of academic research, and practitioners to focus on specific improvement projects. Eight case studies were conducted, in which 124 NPD personnel were interviewed, involving the diagnosis of the NPD process and the identification and selection of NPD improvement projects. The diagnostic method applied was the Current Reality Tree (CRT), which is a cognitive method for identifying undesirable effects (problems) in a process. Text mining techniques were then applied to identify similarities among these CRTs. Lastly, NPD categories were created to classify the NPD problems. An analysis of the rate of problems per category underlined the importance of diagnosing the NPD process. It was concluded that process and project management are just as critical as product strategy definition and human resource management. Additionally, we concluded that companies would gain greater benefits by focusing on the aforementioned areas before investing in information and communication technology. Potential pitfalls of NPD may be avoided if companies adopt proactive management actions to mitigate their NPD recurrent problems based on the results presented here.

Keywords: New Product Development, Process Improvement, Diagnosis Method, Current Reality Tree

EMJ Focus Areas: Engineering Management: Past, Present & Future, Innovation & New Product Development

The New Product Development (NPD) process is one of the main business processes in companies seeking a competitive advantage (Liker and Morgan, 2011); therefore, this process should be assessed and improved continually in a cyclic sequence of process diagnosis, definition, and execution of improvement projects.

Many companies still carry out NPD in expertise silos and are unable to optimize the flow of product development (PD) information across these silos. This information is usually pushed forward from product concept to detailed design, until it reaches production. These and other factors contribute to increased NPD rework, leading to delays and increased NPD costs (Liker and Morgan, 2011). Analyzing this and other problems, Liker

20 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

improvement projects. This should expedite new diagnoses and contribute to a more effective definition of improvement projects, thereby improving the BPM cycles. Finally, given the existence of the discussion about the organizational and structural differences between small, medium, and large companies, and the relevance of this difference regarding their NPD processes (Huang et al., 2002; Ledwith and ODwyer, 2009; Ledwith et al., 2006) (e.g., SMEs can be more flexible and motivated, nevertheless they face greatest restrictions of managerial, financial, and technological resources (Huang et al., 2002)), this article attempts to answer the following research question: Is the occurrence of problems per category independent of company size?

Liker and Morgan (2011) suggest that a better perception of NPD can be gained by in-depth case studies; therefore, the methodology adopted here was multiple-case study research (Yin, 1994) involving eight companies: two large automobile manufacturers, one large white goods manufacturer, two medium-sized companies of the capital goods sector, two small high-tech companies, and one research laboratory. In the analytical phase, the recurrent problems documented in the CRT were extracted and then systematized using text mining techniques. The recurrent problems were classified based on categories created and subsequently evaluated by third-party experts.

This research contributes to engineering management by identifying recurrent NPD problems for academia and companies. Knowledge of these recurrent problems may lead to the definition of process improvement projects aimed at enhancing NPD performance.

The remainder of this article consists of a literature review on NPD process, BPM, and cause-and-effect diagnosis; a description of the research steps and discussion of the results; and, a presentation of conclusions and future work.

Literature Review NPD Process: Problems, Critical Success Factors and Challenges for Process ImprovementNew product development (NPD) is a business process aimed at converting market opportunities, technology, and customer needs into technical and commercial solutions (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). Since effective NPD is recognized as a core process that ensures the success of companies, improving NPD is a key factor for the success of a company. The importance of NPD continues to grow in response to increasingly rapid technological advances and to globalization, which has opened up markets worldwide to free trade, rendering the marketplace highly competitive.

According to Ulrich and Eppinger (2003), NPD processes can be considered a sequence of steps or activities that an enterprise performs in order to conceive, design, and commercialize a product. Because these activities involve information interchanges (Browning and Eppinger, 2002), this process requires the cooperation of people with varying levels of expertise and experience and from different departments in the organization. Hence, effective communication is a prerequisite in the management of NPD activities as a continuous learning process (Soderquist, 2006; Gonzales and Palacios, 2002).

A large number of NPD best practices, tools, methods, and systems have been developed to help companies improve their NPD process. Nonetheless, numerous companies have consistently failed in their attempts to develop their products on time, within budget, and with the expected features and quality (Cooper, 2001; Rozenfeld et al., 2008). There is also a considerable body of literature that seeks to identify the critical success factors

of NPD. The Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) has sponsored best practice research projects to identify NPD trends (Barczak et al., 2009; Khan, Barczak, and Moss, 2006; Griffing, 1997). Cooper published several papers about NPD best practices (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007; Cooper et al., 2004a; Cooper et al., 2004b; Cooper et al., 2004c). The literature contains a collection of works focusing on NPD improvement (Nepal et al., 2011; Rozenfeld et al., 2008; Caffyn and Grantham, 2003; Boer and Gertsen, 2003; Bessant and Francis, 1997; Bartezzaghi, 1997). Other authors have evaluated the body of research on NPD over the years (Leon and Farris, 2011; Gerwin and Barrowman, 2002; Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001). Only a few of these publications have addressed the problems that occur during NPD (Baines et al., 2006; Cooper and Kleinschmidit, 2007; Barczak et al., 2009); however, few problems were identified without a broader and more systematic assessment. Moreover, no reference was found of an empirical study focusing on the identification and understanding of these challenges and corresponding solutions.

In the PDMA survey, Barczak, Griffing, and Khan (2009) suggest some practices to improve NPD, without a cause-and-effect analysis of existing problems. The product development trends identified in this survey were:

Use of a formal NPD, Development of a specific strategy for product development, Measurement of NPD results, Expectation of greater NPD efforts, Use of multifunctional teams, Execution of different types of qualitative market surveys, andUse of design tools such as CAD and computer simulations.

According to Cooper and Kleinschmidt (2007), the suitability of human and financial resources and of expenditures on new product research and development should be considered critical factors in NPD. The authors also point out that the existence of a formal product development process does not, per se, have much effect on NPD performance. Also according to these authors, some companies erroneously reengineer their NPD process simply to have a documented process underpinned by good practices, without concern for the execution of the process, which will not result in successful product development. The modeling of this process should take into account some of its specificities, e.g., that because it is innovative and inventive it cannot be totally mechanized, even though part of its structure is repetitive, and it should, therefore be structured to facilitate project management (Browning et al., 2006). In short, Browning et al. (2006) conclude than a more generic approach may be more helpful and useful, providing a positive impact on NPD performance.

Widely discussed in the literature (Leon and Farris, 2011), the concept of waste is tied to non-value added activities performed in a process (Womack and Jones, 2006). Its identification and elimination are considered essential conditions for the implementation of the lean approach (Baine et al., 2006). It should be noted that the diagnosis of waste in NPD is considered a challenge, since the problems inherent to this process are structural and systemic rather than pointwise and/or partial (Letens et al., 2011).

Due to so many challenges and best practices that lead to success in NPD, companies find it difficult to identify which of these challenges impact their processes and which critical success factors they should adopt. Companies should evaluate their opportunities for NPD improvement based on an assessment

21March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

of their real needs. Published best practices should be evaluated before being implemented since, according to Bessant (2005), companies have different specificities and learning processes, and therefore the results expected from the implementation of these best practices are not always achieved.

From the above, it can be concluded that there is a gap in the literature about the identification and analysis of the main problems that affect the efficiency and effectiveness of NPD, with particular emphasis on the lack of empirical case studies for such analyses. Our work proposes to fill this gap by systematizing recurrent NPD problems found in multiple case studies, and by discussing their occurrence in terms of NPD knowledge areas.

BPM as an Encompassing Approach to Improve NPDAccording to Jeston and Nelis (2008), BPM is, the achievement of an organizations objective through the improvement, management, and control of essential business processes. It can be stated that BPM is a structured and systematic approach to analyze, improve, control, and manage processes in order to improve the quality of products and services. This approach depends on the alignment of business operations with strategic priorities, on operational elements, on the use of modern tools and techniques, people involvement, and most importantly, on a horizontal focus that enables the clients requirements to be met in the best possible way (Hung, 2006; Jeston and Nelis, 2008; Mallick and Schroeder, 2005; Zairi, 1997).

Adopting a BPM approach allows the NPD process to be treated as one of the companys processes that are constantly monitored based on their performance indicators and analyzed in order to identify opportunities for improvement. Based on the application of this approach, change projects can be designed to improve the NPD process according to the desired level of maturity (Rozenfeld et al., 2008; Rozenfeld et al., 2009). Like most change management methods, BPM methods are cyclic; comprising strategy definition, diagnosis, and modeling of the current situation; definition of improvement project portfolios; and the development of projects (Costa and Rozenfeld, 2007).

In the first phase of the method, Defining the Change, the need for change is evaluated together with the companys business strategy. The diagnostic phase seeks to understand the problematic situation to be changed; therefore, it is normal to carry out cause-and-effect analysis or to model the as-is situation using a process modeling notation. The main purpose of this phase is to identify problems that disturb systems or processes. This identification leads to the discovery of opportunities for improvement. In the next phase, Evaluating the Portfolio of Change Projects, the proposed improvement projects are analyzed and their priorities are evaluated. This phase is implemented only if several improvement projects have been considered; otherwise, the next phase should be started. Defining a change project for minor changes is unnecessary since such changes can simply be implemented (e.g., by a Kaizen activity).

Each change project selected triggers the next phase, Planning the Change, through the project and product scope. The project objectives are defined and refined, and the project activities are planned. In addition, the work breakdown structure (WBS) and project schedule are developed. In the Analyzing the Concurrent Situation phase, the problematic situation is diagnosed in greater detail, the change requirements are developed, and the quantitative and qualitative data of the present situation are compiled. Subsequently, the Designing the Future Situation phase begins by devising a solution, taking into account the initial objectives

and the project stakeholders opinions, thus minimizing possible resistance. After the future situation has been modeled (to-be NPD model), each project triggers the Implementing the Change phase. This phase consists of training the people involved in the change, implementing the change, and informing the stakeholders about the projects situation. The last phase of the method, Validation, should begin after a period of institutionalization of the change. This phase involves ascertaining if any of the objectives has shifted away from the initial plan. Furthermore, it involves analyzing the initial problem and whether or not the requirements have been met. Finally, the stakeholders are informed of the end of the improvement project.

The diagnostic phase of BPM stands out because it is here that improvement opportunities are identified, and consequently, improvement projects are defined. This is the phase in which the main problems are identified, and preferably their root causes as well. Recurrent problems are frequently found in the same process, which, if systematized, could be used as a reference for a new diagnosis of the process in a company whose objective is to identify its problems and improvement opportunities.

In this article, we investigate problems occurring during NPD processes in order to pinpoint recurrent problems and thus facilitate the diagnosis of a specific case. To this end, we adopt a cause-and-effect diagnostic method to document problems that occur during a project, as well as in the management of new product development itself. As explained in the next section, a cause-and-effect diagnostic is a useful tool not only for studying the NPD process, and particularly for pointing out interpretative problems, but also for addressing them.

Cause-and-Effect DiagnosisEvery problem has an underlying cause. This statement is found in the literature in the most recent studies aimed at the improvement of processes (Ishikawa, 1982; Deming, 1986; Goldratt, 1994; Doggett, 2005). The Ishikawa Cause-and-Effect Diagram, also called the Fish Bone Diagram (Deming, 1986), the Current Reality Tree (CRT) (Goldratt, 1994), the Interrelationship Diagram (Doggett, 2005), and Cognitive Maps (Eden, 1992) are examples of methods and/or tools that are helpful in the discovery of problems and in understanding their relationships.

Doggett (2004) made a statistical comparison of three methods: the Cause-and-Effect Diagram, Current Reality Tree, and Interrelationship Diagram. In terms of the ease of learning these methods, the author concluded that the CRT is the most complex one; however, in terms of results, he considered the CRT the most suitable method for identifying a larger number of problems and root causes, as well as for discussing the target process. The focus of this work is the identification of recurrent problems in new product development. The CRT was adapted for this purpose and is, therefore, the only one described in detail here.

Current Reality Tree is one of the thinking process tools of the Theory of Constraints (Goldratt, 1994), designed to help identify process constraints, called undesirable effects, which can be considered a problem. According to Doggett (2005), It reflects the most probable chain of cause-and-effect factors that contribute to a specific set of circumstances and creates a basis for understanding complex systems. The term tree indicates the fact that the CRT creates dependence relationships, reality refers to the problems that are peoples perception of that reality, and current indicates the perception of a particular situation in a certain period of time. The purpose of the CRT is to link

22 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

these effects or problems logically through cause-and-effect relationships (Scoggin et al., 2003). CRT uses entities and arrows to describe the process. The entities, normally represented by a rectangle, are statements that express a problem, while the arrows represent cause-and-effect relationships. Exhibit 1 illustrates this link. The arrowheads represent the effects caused by the arrow shafts, so effects should be read from top to bottom, i.e., effect A is caused by effect 1, 2 and 3, and so on. The goal is to identify root causes that impact the largest number of effects in order to design improvement projects that eliminate as many problems as possible.

As can be seen in Exhibit 1, a significant majority of undesirable effects are caused by other effects or root causes; therefore, it is essential to classify the effects to gain a better understanding of the most significant problems that must be eliminated. The undesirable effects located at the top of the tree are called main effects because they do not cause other effects. Moreover, these are also the problems of which people are usually more aware. The effects in the middle of the tree are called intermediate effects (IE). Some of these effects cause several other effects; therefore, efforts should focus on eliminating them as soon as they are identified. Finally, root causes are the effects that give rise to all the other effects. People rarely perceive the extent of the impact of root causes, whose identification is the main goal when creating CRTs (Goldratt, 1994).

This classification is necessary to demonstrate that all effects are considered symptoms of problems that impact the execution of the process, i.e., these problems directly influence the efficiency

and effectiveness of the process; therefore, it is important to identify all these problems during the construction of the tree.

An overview of the CRT construction method is given by Rahman (2002). The author lists eight basic activities involved in building a CRT:

List the undesirable effects by interviewing the process team1. Connect two or more of the effects if they are causally 2. relatedConnect all other effects3. Read the tree from the bottom up and make the necessary 4. correctionsEvaluate if the tree as a whole reflects reality5. When necessary, expand the tree to include more effects6. Present the tree to a few people7. Make the necessary corrections and complete the tree8.

Although the construction of a CRT is simple, it requires a sophisticated rationale since effects are peoples perceptions of something that is disturbing their system, so these thoughts are not explicit. Since effects are peoples perceptions, the team building the CRT should be careful to avoid inserting only their own biases into the tree, since doing so would result in a tree reflecting a personal rather than a commonly-held view of reality. This risk can be eliminated by interviewing as many people as possible and by setting up a team consisting of members from different areas of the company.

A second concern about CRT is the identification of only one root cause. Goldratt (1994) argues that, provided they are

Exhibit 1. Structure of the Current Reality Tree (Doggett, 2005)

(7) Standardization of practices is not a company value

(1) Operators do not use standard practices

(3) Some standard practices are

incorrect

(5) Standard practices are not updated regularly

(4) Some operations do not have

standard practices

(6) The company does not have a defined system for creating

and updating standard practices

(2) Company does not enforce the use of standard practices

23March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

investigated in depth, the problems of a system can be traced back to a single root cause, and once this cause has been eliminated, the system will work perfectly. It should be noted, however, that even if a single root cause is identified, its elimination through a single project is practically unfeasible; therefore, as other authors have suggested (Doggett, 2005; Rahman 2002), the identification of more than one root cause should not be considered negative.

The steps involved in this research and its application are described below to demonstrate how the NPD problems were systematized.

Research Methodology In order to achieve the aim of this research, a combination of suitable research methods was outlined; thus, three steps were carried out: (1) conducting NPD diagnosis; (2) NPD diagnosis analysis; and (3) NPD problem classification. Exhibit 2 shows the methods applied in the steps, involving case studies in which the cause-and-effect diagnostic method was applied to perform the NPD diagnosis and text mining techniques were employed to cluster the problems of all the cause-and-effect diagnoses. Finally, categories of NPD problems were defined and validated by NPD process experts, allowing for an analysis of NPD problems versus reports in the literature. The multiple case study and text mining methods are described in detail below.

Multiple Case Study The case study approach was chosen as the best way to construct the NPD diagnoses (Step 1). To this end, cause-and-effect diagnoses were carried out at eight manufacturing companies whose profiles are given in Exhibit 3. The Current Reality Tree

(Goldratt, 1994) was adapted here to carry out the diagnoses. The main activities performed during the construction of the cause-and-effect diagnoses were: (1) planning of the NPD diagnosis project; (2) becoming acquainted with the object of study; (3) preparation of the interview guidelines; (4) conducting individual interviews; (5) creation of a list of problems; (6) construction of the tree; (7) validation of the tree, (8) assignment of improvement projects; and (9) presentation of the tree to the NPD team and stakeholders.

In the first activity, the number of researchers to conduct the interviews, the number of people to be interviewed at each company, and the number of NPD experts to validate the diagnosis jointly with the companies was planned (Exhibit 4). We sought to select interviewees from diverse areas that act in or interface with NPD, e.g., product engineering, process engineering, project management, purchasing, information technology, manufacturing, and directors.

To ensure that every aspect of the NPD process was examined, a checklist was created to guide the interviews during the diagnosis (Appendix 1). In most cases, the interviews were conducted by two researchers, who met with each interviewee in the company individually. Individual interviews were used because, based on the authors previous experience, interviewees find it easier to express their concerns about problems that interfere in their activities when their managers are not present.

During the interviews, the researchers used the interview checklist as a guide to bring up problems. For each dimension, the researchers asked the interviewee if he/she perceived any problem concerning the theme. For example, at company C, the researchers asked the interviewees, In your opinion, is there any problem

Exhibit 2. Research Methods

Multiple Case Studies Cause and Effect Analysis

Text Mining Clustering

1. Conducting NPD diagnoses

2. NPD diagnoses analysis

Literature revision Mann-Whitney Test

Systematization of Recurrent NPD problems

Research StepsMethods applied

3. NPD problems classification

Exhibit 3. Company Profiles

Company Size State of Growth Industry Sector Product Development Newness

A Small Growing Robotics New to world

B Large Static Automobile Product improvement

C Medium Growing Capital Goods Product improvement

D Small Growing Industrial Design New to company

E Large Static Automobile Product improvement

F Small Growing Chemical New to world

G Small Static Laboratory Research New to company

H Large Static White Goods Product improvement

24 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

in how the new product development process is structured? Some examples of responses are: We dont know why or for what the client wants the improvement that sales passed on to us (product engineer); There should be greater integration among the departments (directors); and In engineering its each one for himself, we dont know what anyone else is doing (designer). Based on an analysis of these and other responses, the researchers identified two problems: little integration of engineering with other departments, and little integration among the people involved in NPD. The causal relationships between these problems and the rest of the list were established to create the cause-and-effect tree. For example, for these two problems, both has as one of its direct causes the problem lack of vision of the NPD to business process which in turn is caused by the root cause management methods and techniques are not valued. The case studies resulted in eight cause-and-effect trees (due to space constraints, only the tree of company C is presented in Appendix 2).

The trees were validated first with the specialists and later with all the interviewees of the companies that participated in the diagnosis. After validating the tree, the researchers analyzed and identified the main improvement opportunities for each company. These opportunities were formalized in an improvement project charter document (improvement project list is presented in Appendix 3). The suggested improvement projects differed in size and scope short, medium, and long term. To illustrate, one of the projects proposed for company C was the Definition of a model of reference of NPD with the use of gates, with emphasis on project management. The implementation of each project aimed to eliminate or minimize the presence of a set of problems. Lastly, the projects were presented and analyzed by the NPD coordinators and by the directorate of the companies, who defined the priority of their implementation according to the strategies of each company. After the case studies were completed and the eight cause-and-effect trees were validated, research Step 2 was initiated to define recurrent NPD problems. The results of this second step are described below.

Text Mining In order to achieve the best results in Step 2 (NPD diagnostic analysis), a multivariate data analysis technique called cluster analysis was used to group similar objects. In this work, we used a cluster strategy to organize a set of NPD problems into groups and subgroups, based on the textual description of each NPD problem. To this end, we adapted a text mining technique described by Moura et al. (2008), which consists of four phases:

Initially, a set of NPD problems are pre-processed and 1. transformed into a structured representation called a bag of words. In this representation, each NPD problem is defined

with a vector di = (ai1; ai2; ... ; aim), where aij represents the frequency of occurrence of the term j (word) in problem i. In this phase, terms that are not representative for the domain (such as articles, pronouns, and prepositions) are removed.Based on the vector representations of each NPD problem, a 2. similarity matrix of the problems is calculated. The similarity between two problems di and dj is calculated by means of the cosine similarity measure, which is the cosine angle between the two vectors (Equation 1) (Marcacini and Rezende, 2010). The more similar the two NPD problems are, the closer the value of the cosine similarity is to 1; otherwise, the value approaches 0.The similarity matrix of the problems NPD is used as input 3. for the hierarchical clustering algorithm Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean (UPGMA). Initially, each NPD problem is considered a single group. The two most similar groups in the similarity matrix are then joined into one group. The process continues iteratively until all the problems are grouped. As a result, the NPD problems are organized hierarchically into a sequence of groups called a dendrogram.Lastly, the most relevant terms for each group of NPD 4. problems obtained in the previous phase are selected. To this end, the terms most frequently employed for each group are used. This phase helps identify the contents of the existing NPD problems in each group (Moura and Rezende, 2007).

Cos( , ) = | | (1)After this data mining step, we sought to answer the research

question for this article: Is the occurrence of problems per category independent of company size? To this end, we put forward the null hypothesis H0: The occurrence of problems per category is independent of company size.

ResultsNPD Diagnostic Analysis and Definition of Recurrent Problems The purpose of using text mining was to identify recurrent problems. Recurrent problems are similar problems that occur in more than one company. In other words, whenever the same problem was found in at least two of the eight diagnoses carried out in this study, it was considered a recurrent problem. Exhibit 5 shows the number of problems per company, as well as the number of recurrent problems. Since the eight companies have different NPD processes (due to the wide diversity of their product types), the average of 62% of similarity among their problems can be considered a significant rate. The cause-and-effect trees each contained an average of 56 problems that are not root causes

Exhibit 4. Number of Participants

Company Number of NPD Experts Number of Researchers Number of Interviewees

A 1 2 4

B 2 3 27

C 1 5 11

D 1 2 4

E 2 3 29

F 1 3 14

G 2 2 3

H 1 2 32

25March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

(ranging from 45 to 69) and had an average of 85 cause-and-effect relationships (ranging from 57 to 104).

One of the main advantages of performing a cause-and-effect diagnosis is that it allows for the identification of the root causes that lead to problems. Defining root causes is a challenging task. Nevertheless, companies should strive to identify and eliminate them, since a project aimed solely at solving an intermediate effect will usually have little effect in improving the entire problematic situation. Exhibit 5 lists the average number of recurrences of root causes per company. The 72% of similarity among root causes indicates that companies share common difficulties in managing their NPD processes; therefore, a portfolio of common improvement projects can be proposed to address the root causes (Appendix 3).

The investigation carried out in this research may serve to help companies analyze their own root causes. Exhibit 6 lists the most relevant NPD problems, i.e., recurrent problems (affecting at least half the companies) and their root causes. Based on this list, companies will be able to (1) identify NPD problems and root causes, thereby expediting the diagnostic process; (2) use the list to evaluate the impact of these problems on their NPD process; and (3) prioritize NPD improvement projects based on a pragmatic rationale.

Classification of NPD Problems The NPD problem analysis (Step 3) concerns the possibility of classifying non-recurring and recurring problems. The text mining did not result in a set of categories for groups of recurring problems that justified grouping into larger groups to create, for example, categories of groups; however, it is worth noting that the purpose of text mining was to identify similarities among the relevant problems of sample work, i.e., it sought to demonstrate that NPD has recurring problems.

Having reached this conclusion, nine categories were established to classify the problems based on knowledge areas suggested by PDMABok (Griffin and Somermemeyer, 2007), CMMI (SEI, 2002) and PMBOK (PMI, 2008). Although these three reports suggest more than nine areas, it was not possible to identify all the areas in the sample of work-related problems. We also believe that a category should be added that is not included in the above-mentioned Knowledge Management sources. We, therefore, added this new category after the analysis of the dimensions of the NPD proposed by Silva and Rozenfeld (2007), which highlights the current importance of Knowledge Management in NPD processes. The nine major categories were:

Cost Management: problems relating to NPD project and process cost management, and their impact on manufacturing costs (PMBok);Customer and Market Research: problems having to do with bringing external insights into product innovation

and development and related to markets, channels, and competitors (PDMA Bok);Information and Communication Technology: problems relating to information technology, in this case involving every system that might affect the NPD process (CMMi);Knowledge Management: problems involving knowledge management, such as knowledge transfer, product documentation management, etc. (Silva and Rozenfeld);People, Teams, and Culture: problems of human resources management and others emerging as a result of cultural aspects of the company or department (PDMA Bok and PMBok);Process Management: problems involving NPD process management and technical NPD problems (PDMA Bok and CMMi);Project Management: problems involving the management of product development projects (PMBok and CMMi);Strategy and Planning: problems involving strategic issues, encompassing corporate, process and/or product strategy levels ( PDMA Bok);Supply Chain Management: problems involving supplier management through the NPD process. (PDMA Bok).

The definition of these categories offers an opportunity to generalize and develop a grounded theory about the main NPD problems.

The assumption that the proportion of the companies problems per category is independent of their size was tested using the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test. This test was chosen because it is a nonparametric alternative to the t test for the comparison of means when the samples are small (Montgomery et al., 1999). As mentioned previously, Hypothesis H0 is that the average proportion of problems per category is the same in large and small companies.

Exhibit 7 presents the results of the comparisons made between the group of large companies and the group of small companies for the 9 categories. As can be seen, all the comparisons showed a level of significance higher than 5% ( = 0.05). Thus, hypothesis H0 could not be rejected, so the assumption that the proportion of problems is independent of company size was confirmed by the Mann-Whitney test.

The analysis of the categories that companies should monitor more carefully is, therefore, valid. Exhibit 8 shows the median occurrence rate of problems according to their categories and per company. This figure also allows for an analysis of the categories that should be investigated in greater depth in order to determine the reason for a high standard deviation. The categories that proved to be the most problematic in the opinion of the companies were: Process Management, Project Management, People, Teams and Culture, and Strategy and Planning.

Exhibit 5. Analysis of the Average Number of Recurrent Problems and Root Causes per Company

Companies A B C D E F G H Total

# Problems 45 60 55 56 57 53 50 69

# Recurrent problems 32 25 31 32 38 39 34 45

% Recurrent problems 71% 42% 56% 57% 67% 74% 68% 65% 62%

# Root causes 9 4 4 7 3 7 5 6

# Recurrent root causes 5 2 3 4 2 5 5 6

% Recurrent root causes 56% 50% 75% 57% 67% 71% 100% 100% 72%

26 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

Exhibit 6. List of Relevant NPD Problems

Occurrence NPD Recurrent Problems Root Cause

6 Absence / disability product portfolio management

6 Absence / disability product requirement management

5 Absence / disability strategic planning Yes

5 Absence / lack of benchmarking Yes

5 Absence / lack of human resource management Yes

5 Absence / lack of improvement processes Yes

5 Absence / lack of integration between NPD people Yes

5 Absence / lack of process vision Yes

5 Absence / lack of production process planning

5 Absence / lack of suppliers development

5 Absence / lack of training

5 High product cost

4 Absence / disability of engineering change management

4 Absence / disability product strategic planning

4 Absence / disability in performing teamwork Yes

4 Absence / disability in the circulation of information

4 Absence / disability in use of project management techniques

4 Absence / failure to perform tests

4 Absence / lack of definition of roles / responsibilities Yes

4 Absence / lack of measurement of costs

4 Absence / lack of procedures

4 Delay in launching products

4 High work load

4 Information system limited Yes

4 Lack of knowledge about NPD best practices Yes

4 Poorly defined organizational structure Yes

4 Reinventing the wheel Yes

4 Unmotivated staff

3 Absence / disability in classifying projects Yes

3 Absence / lack of formal process of project management Yes

3 Lack of NPD knowledge repository Yes

3 Strategic Planning deficient Yes

2 Absence / lack of formal NPD process Yes

2 Difficulty in identifying skills Yes

2 Lack of knowledge of project management best practices Yes

2 Lack of knowledge of TIC (technology information communication) potential Yes

2 Problems of personal relationships Yes

2 Reduction of costs is main goal Yes

2 Technology immature Yes

27March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

The largest standard deviations in the categories involve Project Management (=7%), People, Teams and Culture (=7%), Process Management (=6%), and Strategy and Planning (=6%). In the case of standard deviations in the Process Management and Project Management categories, the analysis should focus on the specific case of Company F, which contributed significantly in increasing the standard deviations. Because this company develops highly innovative and complex products, the focus on project management can strongly affect the success of the NPD process. Thus, in the case of this company, the perception of the extent to which project management problems affect NPD was inversely correlated with Process Management. Lastly, in the Strategy and Planning category, the standard deviation was increased by Company B. This company did not report Strategy and Planning-related problems, possibly because it is a large company of the automotive sector whose strategic planning is better structured due to its size.

An additional analysis is root cause analysis. Exhibit 9 presents the average rate of recurrent root causes versus recurrent problems, by category. As can be seen in this figure, the four categories that most strongly affect NPD were Process Management, People, Teams and Culture, Strategy and Planning, and Information Communication Technology.

We have compared our findings with the literature. The categories with the most frequently recurring root causes were

consistent with the critical success factors (CSF) cited in the literature. The CSF of supply chain management was not identified in our study. Thus, the following discussion focuses on the categories that are described in both this work and the literature. Practitioners and researches should, therefore, consider them when defining NPD process improvement projects.

The importance of NPD Process Management is discussed extensively in the literature; however, the undesirable effects of its failure are not clearly stated; for example, the lack of process vision strongly impacts the success of NPD. This implies that companies are not able to establish a structured NPD process, and specifically, it results in the absence or lack of integration between NPD personnel, as well as the notion that the NPD team is simply an engineering team. start here This root cause has several other consequences, e.g., the lack of or poorly stated NPD process goals, lack of NPD process interfaces, and the absence or insufficiency of procedures. A high-quality new product process is, according to Cooper and Kleinschmidt (2007), one of the top four factors that distinguishes the better performance of a business. They state that well-performed front-end activities, sharp and early product definition, tough Go/Kill decision points, and quality of execution and thoroughness are the factors that support high-quality NPD processes. These features were identified as the top recurrent causes in our study, indicating that companies are probably aware of the importance of these factors but unaware that they lead to

Exhibit 7. Mann-Whitney Nonparametric Test

Small Companies (n=4) Large Companies (n=3)

Median Median W (p-value)

Process Management 0.27 0.32 13 (0,38)

Project Management 0.22 0.13 20 (0,22)

People, Teams and Culture 0.16 0.26 12 (0,22)

Strategy and Planning 0.11 0.13 14 (0,60)

Information Communication Technology 0.08 0.08 18 (0,60)

Knowledge Management 0.06 0.04 17 (0,86)

Cost Management 0.05 0.03 19 (0,38)

Customer and Market Research 0.03 0.03 16,5 (1,00)

Supply Chain Management 0.02 0 16 (1,00)

Exhibit 8. Analysis of NPD Categories per Company

Size Company Process ManagementProject

Management

People, Teams

and Culture

Strategy and

Planning

Information Communication

Technology

Knowledge Management

Cost Management

Customer and Market

Research

Supply Chain Management

Small A 31% 22% 13% 9% 6% 6% 6% 3% 3%

D 22% 22% 16% 13% 9% 16% 3% 0% 0%

F 18% 33% 15% 13% 5% 5% 3% 3% 5%

G 35% 12% 18% 9% 12% 0% 9% 6% 0%

Medium C 35% 16% 10% 19% 0% 3% 10% 3% 3%

Large B 32% 20% 32% 0% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0%

E 32% 13% 26% 13% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5%

H 33% 11% 16% 18% 9% 4% 4% 4% 0%

Median 32% 18% 16% 13% 7% 5% 4% 3% 2%

Standard deviation 6% 7% 7% 6% 4% 5% 3% 2% 2%

28 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

other problems; therefore, they would benefit from focusing their immediate efforts on solving them. Even so, further research would be useful to dig deeper into the reasons underlying these problems and to devise best practices to assist companies that are willing to improve the quality of their NPD process.

The second category that most strongly impacts NPD performance is People, Teams and Culture. The development of a culture and an organizational structure that emphasize the importance of developing new products is recognized here as a critical factor for achieving effective NPD processes. The case studies performed in this research revealed a lack of these practices and the consequences of their absence were reflected in the poor definition of team structures, problematic interpersonal relationships within the team, and inability to work as team. A consensus was found in the literature concerning the importance of this issue (Barczak et al., 2009; Schum and Lin, 2009; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007; Gonzales and Palacios, 2002). Our findings indicate that the level of competencies and skills of the NPD team is one of the factors that strongly impact the performance of the NPD process. This conclusion is consistent with the opinion of Barczak et al. (2009), who emphasize the importance of cross-functional and NPD project training. One of the main root causes we analyzed is the absence or lack of integration among NPD personnel, and the extent of the negative effects of this problem should be considered. Page and Schirr (2005) and Shum and Lin (2009) also emphasize the importance of this integration, stating that team integration and creating an organization for collaboration and communication are NPD success factors. Gonzalez and Palacios (2002) studied the effect of NPD techniques on new product success and found that not all product development techniques contribute significantly to successful NPD. In the case of Spanish firms, they propose that incorrect implementation and management could be the reason for this finding. In their opinion, organizational and process changes are required in order to apply these techniques to the best advantage, but such changes are hindered by cultural barriers. In view of this finding and the analysis of consequences of the root cause of absence/lack of improvement, we believe it is imperative for companies willing to make organizational changes to be fully aware of the root causes of problems, enabling them to focus their efforts on the right project at the right time. Liker and Morgan also emphasize the importance of making improvements in this area. According to these authors, communication problems and

departmental feuds are very frequent in companies, rendering the process slow and with a high rate of rework.

Regarding the Strategy and Planning category, it was found that the absence of or inadequate strategic planning strongly affects the front-end of the NPD process where product strategy is defined. These activities are critical to the performance of the process because they define which new products should render the business competitive and provide revenue; therefore, the poor execution of these activities results in additional NPD problems (e.g., lack of product modularity), and hence, poor standardization of component interface specifications. The concerns regarding the importance of new product strategy and planning raised in our research have also been emphasized in the literature (Barczak et al., 2009, Page and Schirr; 2008, Schum and Lin, 2009; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007; Gonzales and Palacios, 2002). Cooper and Kleinschmidt (2007) point out the importance of a defined new product strategy in which new product goals are stated, areas of focus are delineated, the role of new products is clearly communicated, and there is long-term momentum. The importance of strategy goals focusing on innovation and R&D was also mentioned by Barczak et al. (2009) and Cooper and Kleinschmidt (2007), who agree that investments in innovation are no longer an option, and that companies should, therefore, attempt to provide a friendly environment for innovation, for example, by providing support and senior management leadership for innovation. Schum and Lin (2007) went a step further in motivating innovation by affirming that stimulus, pace, and slack time for innovation are observed in the best practices of the worlds most innovative companies

Finally, although the category of Information and Communication Technology is not among the top problematic categories, as mentioned earlier, it ranks fourth among the categories with the strongest impact on root causes. This position highlights the importance of the implementation of integrated systems such as Product Life-cycle Management (PLM) systems. Although NPD personnel do not report many systems-related problems, the problems identified can be considered critical because they cause or contribute to the cause of other problems, e.g., absence/inadequacy of engineering change management, lack of a NPD knowledge repository, and reinvention of the wheel; therefore, this issue must be discussed in depth so that it can be tackled efficiently, evaluating the cost-benefit of such improvement projects. There is a controversy about the

Exhibit 9. Analysis of NPD Categories by Problem Types

28%

22%

19%

16%

9%

6%

0% 0% 0%

30%

18%

12%

7%

18%

3%5% 5%

2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Process Management

People, Teams and Culture

Strategy and Planning

Information Communication

Project Management

Customer and Market

Knowledge Management

Cost Management

Supply Chain Management

Recurrent root causesRecurrent problems

%N

PD P

robl

ems

29March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

importance of this category. Authors who discuss the lean model normally do not highlight IT-related improvements, e.g., Liker and Morgan (2011).

As mentioned earlier, root causes are the most relevant problems to be eliminated. Analysis of the study cases revealed that people do not usually perceive these problems clearly as root causes, or they are unaware of the extent to which these problems actually affect the NPD process. The result of this misperception is that companies focus their efforts on areas that fail to contribute as expected toward improving NPD.

Conclusions and Future WorkIn this research, case studies were conducted to build cause-and-effect trees of new product development (NPD) problems. Our analysis focused on the NPD processes of eight companies across a variety of sectors. The main contribution of this work was the systematization of NPD problems. The results confirm the conclusions of Letens et al. (2011) that NPD problems are structural and systemic rather than local and/or partial. The list of principal problems that interfere with the efficiency and effectiveness of NPD presented here can be helpful in gaining a better understanding of the process of improvement of NPD and its activities. The classification of these problems into NPD problem categories offers an excellent opportunity for evaluating the NPD areas that most require improvements. The categories created were Cost Management; Customer and Market Research; Information and Communication Technology; Knowledge Management; People, Teams and Culture; Process Management; Project Management; Strategy and Planning and Supply Chain Management.

With regard to the research question, it can be concluded that the occurrence of problems per category is independent of company size. The results of the Mann-Whitney statistical test indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in the percentage of problems per category between small and large companies. Further research is also needed to understand the behavior of these categories according to different product types. We are aware that the effects of possible interactions among variables require additional study, and answers to these questions can likely be found in research involving a larger sample size.

Despite these limitations, the results of this research suggest several managerial implications for improving NPD processes. The first of these implications is that effective diagnosis plays an important role in improving the NPD process. Our case studies clearly showed that NPD people tackle specific problems in the belief that those problems are the most important ones requiring solutions; however, after performing the diagnosis, they realized that the problems they intended to address were not necessarily the most important ones. This realization has enabled them to outline improvement projects for more fundamental problems such as root causes. In general, root causes are eliminated through medium and/or long-term projects, while other improvements can be accomplished by means of short-term actions; therefore, understanding the importance of addressing the root causes of problems in the NPD process also enabled them to balance their portfolio of improvement projects with small, medium, and long-term projects.

The cause-and-effect diagnosis proved to be an excellent method to analyze NPD process deficiencies. It should be noted that the belief in the identification of a single root cause is discouraged by the authors of this research. As mentioned earlier, the majority of NPD problems are structural and systemic, and a single root cause would only be feasible in a partial and/or pointwise diagnosis. Based on this research, it is also concluded

that the identification and understanding of NPD problems should be considered by companies as a critical success factor for the improvement of this process.

This diagnostic method enables teams seeking to improve NPD to make a more informed choice of NPD improvement projects. Although modeling the as-is situation has been recognized as a critical success factor in defining action plans to achieve a desired to-be situation, we found that performing CRTs can be a faster, and, therefore less expensive way to establish action plans. The experience gained in our case studies enables us to conclude that cause-and-effect diagnoses, such as the CRT, and process modeling should be considered mutually complementary. In other words, in an initial improvement cycle such as the one presented here, a broader diagnosis can be conducted to diagnose a variety of different types of problems, while a second improvement cycle can be performed that involves a second diagnosis, more focused on the dimensions of activities and information of a process, in which the as-is situation of the process is modeled. The CRT method allows for the identification of other types of problems such as cultural and management problems that cannot be represented in a process model; however, we do not underestimate the advantages of process modeling methods, especially for process improvement and system implementation, for instance. Process modeling is critical for a more detailed view of a process; however, this conclusion cannot be generalized until further investigation is conducted to compare the two methods.

The systematization of NPD problems may expedite company diagnoses of the NPD process. Our case studies indicate that making such diagnoses requires not only experience in the diagnostic method but also in the NPD process itself. The list of relevant NPD problems discussed here and presented in Appendix 2 can, therefore, serve as a guide for companies aiming to invest in NPD diagnosis.

The occurrence rate of the problems classified by category indicated the NPD areas with the highest potential for improvement. Our evaluation of the results of the two analyses recurrence of NPD problems and recurrence of root causes clearly indicates that companies should focus carefully on the following areas: Process Management; People, Teams and Culture; Strategy and Planning; Information, Communication and Technology Management; and Project Management.

Examples of very recurrent root causes were: (a) absence/lack of process vision, (b) lack of knowledge of NPD best practices, and (c) lack of a knowledge repository. These root causes highlight the fact that companies still fail to recognize these points as potential for new improvement projects. The case studies also clearly demonstrate that, by failing to apply a diagnostic method, companies end up investing in methods and techniques that appear to them to be more tangible; h, because the method used in this research was based on case studies, we recognize that this proposal requires further research and validation.

For future work, we suggest that the problems identified here be expanded to take into account the impact of new areas of knowledge on the effectiveness of NPD as a sustainable product development process. An analysis of problems as they relate to lean categories of waste could also be useful to aid in the identification of such waste, thereby increasing the added value of new product development. We trust that this discussion of recurrent NPD problems will serve as a guide for improvements in the NPD process and provide a stepping stone toward a better understanding of the main barriers to NPD success and the benefits of diagnoses in this process. In addition, NPD process

30 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

managers can begin to evaluate the problems listed herein and identify them in their NPD processes in order to engage their teams in carrying out improvement projects.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors are indebted to their University of Sao Paulo colleagues for their helpful suggestions and to CNPq and CAPES (Brazil) for their financial support.

ReferencesBaines, Tim, Howard Lightfoot, G. Gareth., M. Williams, and

Richard Greenough, State-of-the-Art in Lean Design Engineering: A Literature Review on White Collar Lean, Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 220:9 (September 2006), pp. 1539-1547.

Barczak, Gloria, Abbie Griffin, and Kenneth B. Kahn, Perspective: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26:1 (January 2009), pp. 3-23.

Bartezzaghi, Emilio, Mariano Corso, and Roberto Verganti, Continuous Improvement and Inter-Project Learning in New Product Development, International Journal of Technology Management, 14:1 (1997), pp. 116-138.

Bessant, John, and David Francis, Implementing the New Product Development Process, Technovation, 17:4 (April 1997), pp. 189-197.

Bessant, John., Richard Lamming, Hannah Noke, and Wendy Phillips, Managing Innovation Beyond the Steady State, Technovation, 25:12 (December 2005), pp. 1366-1376.

Boer, Harry, and Frank Gertsen, From Continuous Improvement to Continuous Innovation: A (Retro)(Per)spective, International Journal of Technology Management, 26:8 (2003), pp. 805-827.

Browning, Tyson R., Ernst Fricke, and Herbert Negele, Key Concepts in Modeling Product Development Processes, Systems Engineering, 9:2 (2006), pp. 104-128.

Browning, Tyson R., and Steven D. Eppinger, Modeling Impacts of Process Architecture on Cost and Schedule Risk in Product Development, IEEE Transaction Engineering Management, 49:4 (2002), pp. 428-442.

Bucher, Tobias, Robert Winter, Project Types of Business Process Management: Towards a Scenario Structure to Enable Situational Method Engineering for Business Process Management, Business Process Management Journal, 15:4 (2009), pp. 548-568.

Caffyn, Sarah, and Andrew Grantham, Fostering Continuous Improvement within New Product Development Processes, International Journal of Technology Management, 26:8 (2003), pp. 843-856.

Clark, Kim B., Takahiro Fujimoto, Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization and Management in the World Auto Industry, Harvard Business School Press (1991).

Cooper, Robert G., Winning at New Products (3rd Ed.), Perseus Pub. (2001).

Cooper, Robert G., Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt, Benchmarking Best NPD Practices I, Research Technology Management, 47:1 (Jan/Feb 2004), pp. 31-44.

Cooper, Robert G., Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt, Benchmarking Best NPD Practices II, Research Technology Management, 47:3 (May/Jun 2004), pp. 50-60.

Cooper, Robert G., Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt, Benchmarking Best NPD Practices III, Research

Technology Management, 47:6 (Nov/Dec 2004), pp. 43-56.Cooper, Robert G., and Elko J. Kleinschmidt, Winning

Businesses in Product Development: The Critical Success Factors, Research-Technology Management, 50:3(May/Jun 2007), pp. 52-66.

Costa, Janaina M.H., and Henrique Rozenfeld, Proposal of the BPM Method for Improving NPD Processes, Product: Management and Development, 5:1(2007), pp. 25-32.

Deming, W. Edwards, Out of the Crisis, MIT Press (1986).Doggett, Anthony Mark. Root Cause Analysis : A Framework for

Tool Selection, Quality Management Journal, 12:4 (October 2005), pp. 34-45.

Eden, Colin, On the Nature of Cognitive Maps, Journal of Management Studies, 29:3 (May 1992), pp. 261-265.

Gerwin, Donald, and Nicholas J. Barrowman, An Evaluation of Research on Integrated Product Development, Management Science, 48:7 (July 2002), pp. 938-953.

Goldratt, Eliyahu M., It`s Not Luck, North River Press (1994)Gonzlez, Francisco J.M., and Toms M.B. Palacios, The Effect

of New Product Development Techniques on New Product Success in Spanish Firms, Industrial Marketing Management, 31:3 (April 2002), pp. 261-271.

Griffin, Abbie, PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14:6 (November 1997), pp. 429-458.

Griffin, Abbie, and Stephen Somermemeyer, The PDMA Toolbok 3 for New Product Development, John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2007).

Huang, Xueli, Geoffrey N. Soutar, and Alan Brown, New Product Development Processes in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Some Australian Evidence, Journal of Small Business Management, 40:1 (January 2002), pp. 27-42.

Hung, Richard Y., Business Process Management as Competitive Advantage: A Review and Empirical Study, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17:1(2006), pp. 21-40.

Ishikawa, Kaoru, Guide to Quality Control (2nd Rev. Ed.), Asian Productivity Organization (1982).

Jeston, John, and Johan Nelis, Business Process Management Practical Guidelines to Successful Implementations (2nd Ed.) Elsevier (2008).

Kahn, Kenneth B., Gloria Barczak, and Roberta Moss, Perspective: Establishing an NPD Best Practices Framework, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23:2 (March 2006), pp. 106-116.

Krishnan, Viswanathan, and Karl T. Ulrich, Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature, Management Science, 47:1 (January 2001), pp. 1-21.

Ledwith, Ann, and Michele ODwyer, Market Orientation, NPD Performance, and Organizational Performance in Small Firms, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26:6 (November 2009), pp.652-661.

Ledwith, Ann, Ita Richardson, and Ann Sheahan, Small Firm-Large Firm Experiences in Managing NPD Projects, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13:3 (2006), pp. 425-440.

Leon, Hilda C. Martinez., and Jennifer A. Farris, Lean Product Development Research: Current State and Future Directions, Engineering Management Journal, 23:1(March 2011), pp. 29-52.

Letens, Geert, Jennifer A. Farris, and Eileen M. Van Aken, A Multilevel Framework for Lean Product Development

31March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

System Design, Engineering Management Journal, 23:1 (March 2011), pp. 69-86.

Liker, Jeffrey K., and James Morgan, Lean Product Development as a System: A Case Study of Body and Stamping Development at Ford, Engineering Management Journal, 23:1 (March 2011), pp. 16-28.

Marcacini, Ricardo M., and Solange O. Rezende, Incremental Construction of Topic Hierarchies Using Hierarchical Term Clustering, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, (July 2010), pp. 553-558.

Montgomery, Douglas C., and George C. Runger, Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers (2nd Ed.), John Wiley & Sons (1999).

Moura, Maria F., Ricardo M. Marcacini, Bruno M. Nogueira, Solange O. Rezende, and Merley Conrado, A Proposal for Building Domain Topic Taxonomies, Proceedings of the I Workshop on Web and Text Intelligence, (October 2008), pp. 83-85.

Moura, Maria F., Solange O. Rezende, Choosing a Hierarchical Cluster Labeling Method for a Specific Domain Document Collection, Proceedings of the New Trends in Artificial Intelligence, (December 2007), pp. 812-823.

Nepal, Bimal P., Om Prakash Yadav, and Rajesh Solanki, Improving the NPD Process by Applying Lean Principles: A Case Study, Engineering Management Journal, 23:1 (March 2011), pp. 52-68.

Page, Albert L., Gary R. Schirr, Growth and Development of a Body of Knowledge: 16 years of New Product Development Research, 1989-2004, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25:3(May 2008), pp. 233-248.

Project Management Institute (PMI), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (4th Ed.) Newtown Saquare (2008).

Rahman, Shams-ur, The Theory of Constraints Thinking Process Approach to Developing Strategies in Supply Chains, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 32:10 (Special Issue 2002), pp. 809-828.

Rozenfeld, Henrique, Daniel C. Amaral, Creusa S.T. Amaral, and Janaina M.H. Costa, NPD Improvement Through Process, Maturity, BPM and Body-of-Knowledge Integration, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Production Research - ICPR Americas, (July 2008).

Rozenfeld, Henrique, S.T. Creusa, Janaina M.H. Costa, and Andrea P. Jubileu, Knowledge-Oriented Process Portal with BPM Approach to Leverage NPD Management, Knowledge and Process Management, 16:3 (2009), pp.134-145

Scoggin, Jacqueline M., Robert J. Segelhorst, and Richard A. Reid, Applying the TOC Thinking Process in Manufacturing: A Case Study, International Journal of Production Research, 41:4 (2003), pp. 767-797.

SEI, Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMISM), Version 1.1 (March), Pittsburgh (2002).

Shum, Paul, Lin, and Grier, A World Class New Product Development Best Practices Model, International Journal of Production Research, 45:7 (Special Issue 2007), pp. 1609-1629.

Silva, Sergio L., and Henrique Rozenfeld, Model for Mapping Knowledge Management in Product Development: A Case Study at a Truck and Bus Manufacturer, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 7:2/3(2007), pp. 216-234.

Sderquist, Klas E. Organizing Knowledge Management and Dissemination in New Product Development, Long Range

Planning, 39:5 (October 2006), pp. 497-523. Ulrich, Karl T., and Steven D. Eppinger, Product Design and

Development (3rd Ed.) McGraw-Hill (2003).Watson, Kevin J., John H. Blackstone, and Stanley C. Gardiner,

The Evolution of a Management Philosophy: The Theory of Constraints, Journal of Operations Management, 25:2 (March 2007), pp. 387-402.

Womack, James P., Daniel T. Jones, Lean Thinking, Simon and Shuster (1996).

Yin, Robert K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications (1994).

Zairi, Mohamed, Business Process Management: A Boundaryless Approach to Modern Competitiveness, Business Process Management Journal, 3:1 (1997), pp. 64-80.

About the AuthorsJanaina M.H. Costa is a postdoctoral associate in the Lean Advancement Initiative in the Engineering System Division at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She received her BS in business science from Unicep University and her MS and PhD in industrial engineering from Sao Paulo University. Her research interests are in product development, change management, performance measurement, and healthcare systems performance improvement.

Henrique Rozenfeld is a graduate of mechanical engineering, Dr.-Ing. at WZL Aachen Germany. He is Coordinator of the Advanced Manufacturing Nucleus (NUMA), Coordinator of the Research Group on Integrated Engineering. He is a faculty member of the Industrial Engineering Department at EESC So Paulo University, Brazil. He was a visiting research scholar at University of Missouri System in 2003. He has served as a consultant on product development for many companies, as advisor of 56 theses, and published more than 400 papers. His research interests are in product development, fuzzy front-end, innovation, product life-cycle management, and enterprise integration.

Creusa Sayuri Tahara Amaral holds a BSc in statistics and an MSc in industrial engineering from the Federal University of So Carlos. She earned her PhD in mechanical engineering and post-doctoral degree in industrial engineering from the University of So Paulo. She has developed work in the fields of statistics, manufacturing simulation, NPD reference models and web systems development

Ricardo M. Marcacini is a PhD student in computer science at the University of So Paulo (USP). He received a BS in information systems and an MS in computer science from the Institute of Mathematical and Computer Sciences (ICMC) at the University of So Paulo. His research interests are text mining, text clustering, and machine learning.

Solange Oliveira Rezende graduated in mathematics from the Federal University of Uberlandia, received a Masters in computer science and computational mathematics from the University of So Paulo, and a PhD in mechanical engineering from the University of So Paulo, So Carlos. She is currently an associate professor in the Computer Science Department at the University of So Paulo. She has experience in artificial intelligence, acting on machine learning, text clustering, and data and text mining.

Contact: Dr. Janaina Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering System Division, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building E38-674, Cambridge, MA 02139; phone: 617-324-8470; jmcosta@mit.edu

32 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

Appendix 1. Interview Checklist

Dimension Detailing of the Dimension

Product Performance, functionality and quality of the product(s)

Monitoring of the product(s)

Activities / Information and Organization (NPD) Organizational structure of NPD

Access to information/Internal and external communication/

Programming/Scheduling of daily activities

Resources (instruments, equipment and facilities) Availability of resources

Performance of resources with respect to work needs

External relationships Relationships with suppliers

Overall relationships with clients

Strategies Creation and operation of the companys strategy

Deployment of strategic planning to NPD

Knowledge Competencies required for the companys NPD

Updating of knowledge of the NPD team

Process Strategic planning of the companys products

Product project planning and project management

Conceptual description of the product

Product detailing activities

Planning and detailing of the production process

Evaluation of prototype and accessory failures during NPD

Planning /development of sales, manufacturing, distribution, and technical assistance processes for new products

Management of engineering changes: during and after new product development

Improvement of new product development

33March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

Appendix 2. Example of Company Cs Current Reality Tree

34 March 2013Vol. 25 No. 1Engineering Management Journal

Appendix 3. List of Suggested Improvement Projects Identified

Adoption, training and application of the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) technique in the new product development process Definition of a procedure to evaluate the decision of make or buy components of the productImplementation of requirements management integrated with engineering change managementDefinition of a human resources management policy to support NPDDefinition of the organizational structure for NPD, including suppliers and clientsDefinition of a procedure for the selection and management of partnersImprovement of the organizational culture management focusing on the improvement of product developmentDefinition of the responsibilities of project managers and teamsSelection and adoption of best project management practices Proposal of a visual model of the phases of NPD, with indication of templates per phaseDevelopment and management of a list of ongoing projects Definition of a document template to describe the scope of the projectDefinition of a procedure for communicating with top level management systematically Development of a knowledge repositoryDefinition of a process for sharing knowledge about new product development management Definition of a process for sharing knowledge about project knowledge management Definition of standard nomenclature for projectsIncorporation of economic feasibility studies for NPD projectsDefinition of a NPD reference model using gates, with emphasis on project management Definition of a model of performance indicators Development of a strategy for reduction of the technology gapImplementation of Product Data Management (PDM) systemsImplementation of project management software Implementation of a product modularization strategy Definition of procedures for the development of product cost reduction projects Formulation of strategic product planningImplementation of a market analysis process Analysis and planning of Information and Communication Technologies to support NPD

Copyright of Engineering Management Journal is the property of American Society for EngineeringManagement and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without thecopyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.