Understanding Superior New Product Development - Ina Horn - ebook

Understanding Superior New Product Development ebook

Ina Horn

0,0

Opis

Over the past decade, many companies in the semiconductor and aerospace industries have significantly upgraded their new product development processes, with disciplined timelines, strict design reviews, 'gates' to decision making and cross-functional collaboration. Some companies are outperforming their industry peers in terms of time-to-market and meeting customer needs. This raises the question of how companies can achieve and sustain performance based on the new product development function. To answer this question the present book analyzes the new product development process with a focus on the underlying dynamic capabilities, how such routines evolve on different organizational levels, and what are the associated social phenomena. Comparative case study evidence suggests that higher order resource reconfiguration and integration routines are established idiosyncratically. It is argued that simple, perception-based and loosely-coupled routines seem to be more effective for reconfiguring responsibilities and task sequences. On the other hand, detailed, codified and rigid higher-order routines were found more effective for integrating personnel, outsourced services and new technology.

Ebooka przeczytasz w aplikacjach Legimi na:

Androidzie
iOS
czytnikach certyfikowanych
przez Legimi
Windows
10
Windows
Phone

Liczba stron: 446

Odsłuch ebooka (TTS) dostepny w abonamencie „ebooki+audiobooki bez limitu” w aplikacjach Legimi na:

Androidzie
iOS



Over the past decade, many companies in the semiconductor and aerospace industries have significantly upgraded their new product development processes, with disciplined timelines, strict design reviews, 'gates' to decision making and cross-functional collaboration. Some companies are outperforming their industry peers in terms of time-to-market and meeting customer needs. This raises the question of how companies can achieve and sustain performance based on the new product development function. To answer this question the present book analyzes the new product development process with a focus on the underlying dynamic capabilities, how such routines evolve on different organizational levels, and what are the associated social phenomena. Comparative case study evidence suggests that higher order resource reconfiguration and integration routines are established idiosyncratically. It is argued that simple, perception-based and loosely-coupled routines seem to be more effective for reconfiguring responsibilities and task sequences. On the other hand, detailed, codified and rigid higher-order routines were found more effective for integrating personnel, outsourced services and new technology.

Dr. Ina Horn ist heute als Beraterin bei einer Strategieberatung tätig.

Schumpeter School Reihe

Herausgegeben von Michael Fallgatter, Werner Bönte und Tobias Langner

Band 4

Ina Horn

Understanding Superior New Product Development

A dynamic capabilities perspective

Verlag W. Kohlhammer

© 2011 W. Kohlhammer GmbH Stuttgart Gesamtherstellung: W. Kohlhammer Druckerei GmbH + Co. KG, Stuttgart Printed in Germany

Print: 978-3-17-021224-4

E-Book-Formate

pdf:

epub:

978-3-17-027048-0

mobi:

978-3-17-027049-7

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Explaining idiosyncrasies in new product development

2.3 New product development

2.3.1 Key concepts of new product development

2.3.2 Innovation at the heart of new product development

2.4 Dynamic capabilities

2.4.1 The underlying theoretical framework of the resource-based view

2.4.2 Extension of the resource-based view to dynamic markets: dynamic capabilities

2.4.3 The nature of dynamic capabilities

2.4.3.1 Existing theoretical and empirical evidence

2.4.3.2 Underlying processes I: learning mechanisms

2.4.3.3 Underlying processes II: path dependencies

2.5 New product development and dynamic capabilities

3. Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Research paradigm

3.3 Research design

3.3.1 Research method: why case studies?

3.3.2 Unit of analysis: new product development processes

3.3.3 Why aerospace and semiconductor industries?

3.4 Data collection

3.4.1 Access

3.4.2 Interviews

3.4.3 Archival sources

3.4.4 Participant observation

3.5 Data analysis

4. Case Study Evidence

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Case studies in the aerospace industry

4.2.1 Dynamic capabilities – case study A1

4.2.2 Dynamic capabilities – case study A2

4.3 Case studies in the semiconductor industry

4.3.1 Dynamic capabilities - case study S1

4.3.2 Dynamic capabilities - case study S2

4.4 Cross-industry analysis – dynamic capabilities in new product development

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Evolvement of dynamic capabilities in new product development

5.2.1 Evolvement of higher-order integration routines

5.2.1.1 Evolvement of dynamic integration capabilities in the aerospace industry

5.2.1.2 Evolvement of dynamic integration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

5.2.1.3 Conclusion evolvement of higher-order integration routines

5.2.2 Evolvement of higher-order reconfiguration routines

5.2.2.1 Evolvement of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities in the aerospace industry

5.2.2.2 Evolvement of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

5.2.2.3 Conclusion evolvement of higher-order reconfiguration routines

5.2.3 Conclusion evolvement of higher-order routines

5.3 Characteristics of dynamic capabilities relevant for new product development

5.3.1 Characteristics of dynamic integration capabilities relevant for new product development

5.3.1.1 Characteristics of dynamic integration capabilities relevant for new product development in the aerospace industry

5.3.1.2 Characteristics of dynamic integration capabilities relevant for new product development in the semiconductor industry

5.3.2 Characteristics of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities relevant for new product development

5.3.2.1 Characteristics of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities relevant for new product development in the aerospace industry

5.3.2.2 Characteristics of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities relevant for new product development in the semiconductor industry

5.3.3 Conclusion on characteristics of dynamic capabilities relevant for new product development

5.4 Research limitations

5.5 Implications for practice and further research

Appendix

Interview guide

References

List of Figures

Figure 1:

The Stage-Gate Process

15

Figure 2:

Overview theoretical background

71

Figure 3:

Research process

76

Figure 4:

Industry characteristics of the selected industries are favorable to propel the investigation of dynamic capabilities

79

Figure 5:

History of aircraft introductions at Airbus

80

Figure 6:

Overview tailored theoretical background based on case study evidence

98

Figure 7:

‘Defined’ patterns of dynamic integration capabilities support new product development in the aerospace industry

210

Figure 8:

‘Defined’ patterns of dynamic integration capabilities support new product development in the semiconductor industry

215

Figure 9:

‘Flexible’ patterns of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities support new product development in the aerospace industry

224

Figure 10:

‘Flexible’ patterns of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities support new product development in the semiconductor industry

230

Figure 11:

‘Defined’ patterns of dynamic integration capabilities support new product development

232

Figure 12:

‘Flexible’ patterns of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities support new product development

234

List of Tables

Table 1:

Categories of dynamic capabilities

36

Table 2:

Effective patterns of dynamic capabilities according to market dynamics

39

Table 3:

Evolution of dynamic capabilities – learning perspective

51

Table 4:

Interviews in cases and with other industry experts

86

Table 5:

Rank of interviewees in cases

86

Table 6:

Overview examples of dynamic capabilities in the aerospace industry

99

Table 7:

Overview observed dynamic capabilities case study A1

10

Table 8:

Overview observed dynamic capabilities in case study A2

103

Table 9:

Overview examples dynamic capabilities in the semiconductor industry

107

Table 10:

Overview observed dynamic capabilities in case study S1

108

Table 11:

Overview observed dynamic capabilities in case study S2

110

Table 12:

Overview focused higher-order integration and reconfiguration routines

114

Table 13:

Effective patterns of dynamic capabilities (based on Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000)

118

Table 14:

Overview focused higher-order integration routines

119

Table 15:

Overview focused higher-order integration routines in case studies A1 and A2

120

Table 16:

Overview patterns of dynamic workforce integration capabilities in the aerospace industry

122

Table 17:

Overview patterns of dynamic technology integration capabilities in the aerospace industry

127

Table 18:

Overview patterns of dynamic knowledge integration capabilities in the aerospace industry

135

Table 19:

Overview patterns of dynamic supplier integration capabilities in the aerospace industry

146

Table 20:

Overview focused higher-order integration routines in case studies S1 and S2

150

Table 21:

Overview patterns of dynamic workforce integration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

151

Table 22:

Overview patterns of dynamic knowledge integration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

154

Table 23:

Overview patterns of dynamic supplier integration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

160

Table 24:

Identified patterns of dynamic integration capabilities in the aerospace industry

162

Table 25:

Identified patterns of dynamic integration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

164

Table 26:

Overview focused higher-order reconfiguration routines

166

Table 27:

Overview focused higher-order reconfiguration routines in case studies A1 and A2

166

Table 28:

Overview patterns of dynamic process optimization reconfiguration capabilities in the aerospace industry

168

Table 29:

Overview patterns of dynamic workforce/knowledge transfer reconfiguration capabilities in the aerospace industry

172

Table 30:

Overview focused higher-order reconfiguration routines in case studies S1 and S2

176

Table 31:

Overview patterns of dynamic process optimization reconfiguration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

177

Table 32:

Overview patterns of dynamic knowledge transfer reconfiguration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

182

Table 33:

Identified patterns of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities in the aerospace industry

187

Table 34:

Identified patterns of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

188

Table 35:

Overview patterns of dynamic integration capabilities

194

Table 36:

Overview patterns of dynamic reconfiguration capabilitie

195

Table 37:

Overview patterns of dynamic integration capabilities in the aerospace industry

197

Table 38:

Overview patterns of dynamic integration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

211

Table 39:

Overview patterns of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities in the aerospace industry

217

Table 40:

Overview patterns of dynamic reconfiguration capabilities in the semiconductor industry

225

Summary

Over the past 15 years, most companies in the semiconductor and aerospace industries have upgraded their new product development processes significantly, with disciplined timelines, strict design reviews, ‘gates’ to decision making and cross-functional collaboration. Nevertheless, some companies seem to outperform their industry peers in terms of time-to-market and meeting customer needs. This raises the question of how companies can achieve and sustain performance based on the new product development function.

A dominant framework in the strategic management literature aimed at addressing the question of why firms perform differently has been the resource- based view of the firm (Penrose 1959; Wernerfelt 1984; Mahoney and Pandian 1992; Amit and Schoemaker 1993). Though not unchallenged (e.g., Mosakowski and McKelvey 1997; Williamson 1999; Priem and Butler 2001), the resource-based view is still seen as a significant theoretical framework for understanding how performance within the internal organization of companies is achieved and sustained over time (Penrose 1959; Wernerfelt 1984; Prahalad and Hamel 1990; Barney 1991; Nelson 1991; Peteraf 1993; Teece, Pisano et al. 1997; Eisenhardt and Santos 2002). More recently, as regards the resourcebased view of the firm, researchers have begun to acknowledge explicitly the importance of higher-order routine processes, or dynamic capabilities. Dynamic capabilities are signified by the ability to develop the ‘antecedent strategic routines’ by which the management exploits its resource base – acquires and sheds resources, integrates and recombines them - to generate new valuecreating strategies (Grant 1991, Winter 2003). These capabilities, which enable firm managers to “integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competences” (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997, p. 516) are the drivers behind the realignment and reconfiguration of resources into new forms of competitive advantage (Henderson and Cockburn 1994; Teece, Pisano et al. 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000).

Yet, while strategic management research has shed light on the characteristics of resources and capabilities, as well as the market conditions that permit sustainable competitive advantage (e.g., Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Barney 1991; Peteraf, 1993), little is known about the ways in which dynamic capabilities emerge. Hence, there have been calls for further research to open up the ‘black box’ of precisely how such routines develop (Priem and Butler 2001; Cavusgil, Seggie et al. 2007).

The objective of my research is to contribute to the opening of this ‘black box’ tradition by investigating the mechanisms through which organizations develop capabilities in a dynamic sense (Teece, Pisano et al., 1997). Specifically, I am interested in the higher-order integration and reconfiguration routines underlying the new product development process. By focusing on the new product development process of the aerospace and semiconductor industries, I attempt to answer two related research questions: How can we explain the evolvement of different higher-order integration and reconfiguration routines in the new product development process? Which characteristics of these dynamic capabilities drive, rather than hinder, effective new product development activities?

With regard to the first research question, the data contained in my empirical study suggests that higher-order resource integration and reconfiguration routines evolve idiosyncratically in new product development. Based on 42 face-to-face interviews I found that well-known learning mechanisms guide the evolvement of these dynamic capabilities (e.g., Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Zollo and Winter 2002; Zott 2003). Additionally they seem to underlie path dependencies (e.g., Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Eisenhardt and Brown 1997; Zott 2003). In addition my data shows that within the same industry setting, relatively simple and perception-based routines coexist with detailed and codified higher-order routines on different organizational levels. The development of these different ‘layers’ of routines allow for a ‘stretch’ of resources as proposed by Edmondson et al. (2001) and Zott (2003). Furthermore, the data contained in my empirical study suggests that firms engage in either ‘flexible’ or ‘defined’ patterns of dynamic capabilities. ‘Flexible’ patterns are characterized by “simple, experiential, unstable processes that rely on quickly created new knowledge and iterative execution” and ‘defined’ patterns follow“complicated, detailed, analytical processes that rely on existing knowledge and linear execution” (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000, p. 1106). In building on Eisenhardt and Martin, my empirical data reveals that both patterns can be found within and throughout the observed industries.

As for the second research question, my data shows that relatively simple, experiential and unstable higher-order routines seem to be more effective for reconfiguring responsibilities and task sequences, something that makes it easier to cater to environmental changes (cf. Wang and Ahmed 2007). Such ‘flexible’ patterns of dynamic capabilities are best shaped by a limited structure with clear priorities, guidelines and responsibilities (Eisenhardt and Brown 1997). On the other hand, detailed, analytical and complicated higher-order routines were found to be more effective for integrating personnel, new technology, knowledge and outsourced services. Such ‘defined’ dynamic capabilities are best shaped by the accumulation of experience, the development of collective competence with suppliers and knowledge codification in blueprints, spreadsheets, and decision support systems (cf. King and Tucci 2002; Zollo and Winter 2002).

1. Introduction

New product development has been increasingly facing a fundamental challenge. Companies are under tremendous pressure to bring new products to market more quickly, and ensure that they address the needs of constantly changing and ever-narrower customer segments. These pressures are particularly acute in fast-paced, competitive markets for complex products requiring large investments, such as aeroplanes and microchips.

Over the past 15 years, most companies in the aerospace and semiconductor industries have significantly upgraded their new product development processes, with disciplined timelines, strict design reviews, ‘gates’ to decision making, and cross-functional collaboration. Nevertheless, some companies seem to outperform their industry peers in terms of time-to-market and meeting customer needs. This raises the question of how companies can achieve and sustain performance based on the new product development function.

A dominant framework in the strategic management literature addressing the question of why firms perform differently has been the resourcebased view of the firm (Penrose 1959; Wernerfelt 1984; Mahoney and Pandian 1992; Amit and Schoemaker 1993). Though not unchallenged (e.g., Mosakowski and McKelvey 1997; Williamson 1999; Priem and Butler 2001), the resource-based view is still seen as a significant theoretical framework for understanding how performance within the internal organization of companies is achieved and sustained over time (Penrose 1959; Wernerfelt 1984; Prahalad and Hamel 1990; Barney 1991; Nelson 1991; Peteraf 1993; Teece, Pisano et al. 1997; Eisenhardt and Santos 2002). More recently, as regards the resourcebased view of the firm, researchers have begun to acknowledge explicitly the importance of higher-order routine processes, or dynamic capabilities. Dynamic capabilities are signified by the ability to develop the ‘antecedent strategic routines’ by which the management exploits its resource base – acquires and sheds resources, integrates and recombines them - to generate new valuecreating strategies (Grant 1991, Winter 2003). These capabilities, which enable firm managers to “integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competences” (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997, p. 516) are the drivers behind the realignment and reconfiguration of resources into new forms of competitive advantage (Henderson and Cockburn 1994; Teece, Pisano et al. 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000).

Yet, while strategic management research has shed light on the characteristics of resources and capabilities as well as the market conditions that permit sustainable competitive advantage (e.g., Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Barney 1991; Peteraf, 1993), little is known about the ways in which dynamic capabilities emerge. To date, only a few scholars have studied how higherorder routines develop. For example, Zollo and Winter (2002) suggest that dynamic capabilities are shaped by the co-evolution of various learning mechanisms. Taking a slightly different stance, Blyer and Coff (2003) highlight the importance of social capital in the development of higher-order routines. Other research has explored the managerial activities and processes associated with the evolution of dynamic capabilities (e.g., King and Tucci 2002; Kor and Mahoney 2005). These studies illustrate only some facets that play a role in shaping the evolvement of higher-order routines. Hence, there have been calls for further research to open up the ‘black box’ of precisely how such routines develop (Priem and Butler 2001; Cavusgil, Seggie et al. 2007). As Boccardelli and Magnusson (2006, p. 162) conclude:

“Despite the apparent interest in the dynamics of firm resources, there is still limited empirical evidence for how the strategic matching of resources and market needs is actually done, particularly in more rapidly changing environments.”

Thus the objective of my research is to contribute to the opening of this ‘black box’ tradition by investigating the mechanisms through which organizations develop capabilities in a dynamic sense (Teece, Pisano et al., 1997). Specifically, I am interested in the higher-order integration and reconfiguration routines underlying the new product development process. By focusing on the new product development process of the aerospace and semiconductor industries, I attempt to answer two related research questions: How can we explain the evolvement of different higher-order integration and reconfiguration routines in the new product development process? Which characteristics of these dynamic capabilities drive, rather than hinder, effective product development activities?

The following presents an overview of the relevant literature on new product development as well as the resource-based view. More specifically I will highlight the need for (i) a better understanding of new product development processes embedded in key new product development concepts and (ii) an increase in our understanding of the element of dynamic capabilities and its underlying processes such as learning mechanisms and path dependencies within the resource-based view. I argue that new product development literature has failed to understand the role of dynamic capabilities in the new product development process. Consequently, I suggest that research on dynamic capabilities in the new product development process is a relatively new area of study and that current knowledge is embryonic and not particularly wellgrounded.

The case study-based approach, I argue in a second step, is the most appropriate design for dealing with complex social phenomena that are poorly understood, requiring a holistic, in-depth investigative approach. Furthermore, based on my presentation of the challenges involved in gathering data on social phenomena, most particularly the need to overcome subjectivity and reflexivity, I intend to increase the robustness of the findings by replicating the research in the aerospace and semiconductor industries. From each of these industries I selected two representative cases, albeit extreme, to illustrate the emergence of dynamic capabilities and to explore what dynamic capability characteristics drive, rather than hinder, new product development. While interview data is at the core of my research, it is supported by archival data on all key firms in each of the two industries and participant observation within the four in-depth cases.

In a third step, alongside presenting and interpreting the findings from my case studies, I argue that higher-order resource integration and reconfiguration routines are established idiosyncratically within new product development processes - not only within an industry but also across the observed industries. These idiosyncrasies can be best explained based on learning mechanisms guiding the evolvement of dynamic capabilities, which underlie path dependencies. Furthermore, my data suggests that within the same industry setting relatively simple, experiential and unstable routines coexist with rather detailed, analytical, and complicated higher-order routines on different organizational levels. The development of these different ‘layers’ of routines allows for a ‘stretch’ of resources as proposed by Edmondson et al. (2001) and Zott (2003). However despite the evolvement through unique paths and idiosyncratic processes (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997) it seems to be that dynamic capabilities do inherit commonalities across firms, which is often referred to as ‘best practices’. My empirical study’s data suggests that dynamic capabilities seem to follow either somewhat ‘defined’ or ‘flexible’ patterns (cf. Eisenhardt and Martin 2000). However, in building on Eisenhardt and Martin’s (2000) findings, it seems that both patterns can co-exist in the same type of market environment, i.e., in high-velocity markets such as aerospace or semiconductors.

Moreover my data suggests that relatively simple, experiential and unstable higher-order routines seem to be more effective for reconfiguring responsibilities and task sequences, something that makes it easier to adapt to environmental changes (cf. Wang and Ahmed 2007). Such ‘flexible’ patterns of dynamic capabilities are best shaped by a limited structure with clear priorities, guidelines and responsibilities (Eisenhardt and Brown 1997). On the other hand, detailed, analytical, and complicated higher-order routines were found to be more effective for integrating workforce, knowledge, and new technology and outsourced services. Such ‘defined’ dynamic capabilities are best shaped by the accumulation of experience, the development of collective competence with suppliers as well as knowledge codification in blueprints, spreadsheets, and decision support systems (King and Tucci 2002; Zollo and Winter 2002).

The structure of this thesis is as follows. Section One reviews the relevant literature, highlighting the need for further research on the association of new product development and the establishment of dynamic capabilities.

Section Two presents my research approach, design and methodology. Section Three presents the empirical study’s data for each of the two industries; aerospace and semiconductors. Section Four discusses the empirical study’s data by relating it to the research needs as developed in the second section. Patterns are then identified across these two industries, contributing to a synthesis of the findings. Finally, I discuss the limitations of the study and provide a summary of the discussion’s findings and implications for practice and further research.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Introduction

This section reviews and categorizes relevant literature on key concepts that are employed in this research attempt to better understand idiosyncrasies in new product development by using the resource-based view. More specifically, the second part reviews various attempts at gaining a better understanding of superior new product development and concludes that a fruitful approach seems to be to take a dynamic capabilities perspective. Furthermore I point out that research on dynamic capabilities in the new product development process is a relatively new area of study and that current knowledge is embryonic and not particularly well-grounded. In this respect, the consequential need is highlighted for (i) a better understanding of embedded in and (ii) an increase in our understanding of the element of and its such as learning mechanisms and path dependencies within the . The third part reviews the relevant literature in the area, highlights its and and expands on the natural linkage of new product development and product innovation to outline how innovation is understood within this study. The fourth part reviews the relevant literature in the area and specifically expands on the need for a better understanding of the element of and its . Finally the fifth part links the literature from the and area and highlights the importance of and its to explain idiosyncrasies within new product development.

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!