Product DevelopmentProcesses: Stage-Gate, Agile and Spiral product development Process - Research Paper Example

? Question one: Product Development Processes Table of Contents Introduction 3 Reason for completing this research 3 Three Product Development Processes 5 1)Stage-Gate product development Process 5 2)Agile product development process 9 3)Spiral product development process 10 Comparing and contrasting between the three processes 12 Conclusion 18 References 20 Introduction The ability to develop innovative and appealing new products as well as be able to flawlessly market these products in one of the core success factors for any organisation in a competitive market. Consequently, following an effective product development process, as well as streamlining such processes to align with organisational needs and goals is important in not only important in churning out high performing products, but also in gaining and sustaining competitive advantage (Ahmadi, Roemer, and Wang, 2001:540; Biazo, 2009:337). The process that a firm adapts from the generation of ideas right to the marketing of the products is a very critical issue that impacts the innovative performance of an organisation. a wide array of research have highlighted the significance of choosing the right processes for the development of new products, as such models help in dealing with arising risks in product development as well as align organisational capabilities with the product development processes (Biazo, 2009; Phillips et al., 2004; Bessant and Francis, 2004). Different product development processes are suitable for different situations in terms of the product being developed, the uncertainties involved in the market, as well technological features required. While some processes are more rigid or stable, others have a concept of flexibility in order to ensure that new products are able to adapt to changing market needs. Based on available literature, this paper identifies three product development processes, and compares and contrasts between these three processes noting the key reasons why there are differences between the processes. Reason for completing this research The new products that are developed by organisations in order to attain a competitive advantage are only as good as the process involved in developing them. This implies that the process used in developing products highly determine the success of such new products. Hence, this topic was chosen so as to understand in depth these processes, how the differ and so as to understand the impact of such processes in product development and as well as comparing them to understand which process is favourable in most organisational contexts. Furthermore, during the course of the study, the concept of product development processes was intriguing as it entailed the start of an idea right to the launch and success of the product in the market. Hence getting more insight into the processes in order to understand them better and also to understand the core weaknesses of the group project done, this topic sounded more relevant. Three Product Development Processes A search through product development literature has highlighted three core product development processes that span various organisational contexts. Older literature has strongly highlighted structural processes (Cooper, 1990; Biazo,2009; Cooper, 1994) while new literature has increasingly been giving attention to more flexible and simultaneous processes (Biazo, 2009; MacCormack and Verganti, 2003; Mengoni, Germani, and Mandrli, 2009; Fekri, Aliahmadi, and Fathian, 2009; Jusko, 2010). Indeed Jusko (2010) acknowledges that due the changing nature of global competition which has mainly been due to rise in internet technology adoption, as well as globalisation, businesses are increasingly faced with challenges of developing new products on time and within budget, with most of them exploring and adopting newer product development processes in order to gain a competitive advantage. Unlike the older staged process of product development, Jusko (2010) notes that newer arising processes that are increasingly getting greater attention include agile product development processes, spiral product development processes, and knowledge-base development processes. In this paper, a focus will be placed on three of the models: Stage-Gate product development processes, agile product development processes, and spiral product development processes. 1) Stage-Gate product development Process The stage-gate process was conceptualised by Robert Cooper in 1988 and over the years the process has grown in popularity as a process tool for introducing newer products in the market, especially in the manufacturing industry. This is one of the most prominent product development processes which follow a staged process intersected by gates. Cooper (2008:214) defines the Stage-Gate process as an operational and conceptual map that guides the development of products right from idea generation to the launch of the product in the market. In essence, it is a sort of blueprint that details the process of managing new product development to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the process. The process maps out the steps to be followed in product development. As the name suggests, the process consists of five stages and five gates in product development, coupled with both the idea generation and launching stages. The Stage-Gate process starts with the ideation stage/ discovery stage which is the stage of idea generation. Initially, this stage was just an idea generation stage, but overtime through modification and adjustments by both scholars and practitioners in companies, this stage has evolved into a more proactive ‘Discovery Stage’ that is responsible for capturing and handling ideas which ensures a critical review of ideas generated (Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt, 2002:3-4; Cooper, 2008). From the discovery stage, the product development goes through five stages and five gates and finally ends with the Post –launch review stage. The stages reflect the innovation process with each containing best of practice activities that are completed in order help the project progress to the next gate. The stages incorporate product development processes such as concept exploration, scoping, development, and the testing and validation of the new products as well as launching of the products. Each stage is designed collect important information that will reduce risks and uncertainties in product development, with each succeeding stage costing more than the previous. Furthermore, within each stage there is integrated analysis of the activities completed within that stage with the results defined in deliverables. Such output/deliverables act as the input for the succeeding gate stage (Cooper, 2008: 214). On the other hand, the gates in the model reflect decision points where management reviews the output or deliverable of the prior stage. At this point, the decision to proceed or cancel the project, or rather repeat the previous stage is made by management at each of the gates intertwined within the stages of the model (pp. 215). The process is as shown below: Source: Cooper, 2008; Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt, 2002, pp. 3 A search through literature shows that Stage-Gate process has been a prominent object of research within the product development area. Various research have shown that a big percentage of companies use some form of Stage-Gate process to manage their product development (Gronlund, Sjodin, Frishammar, 2010:109; Cooper and Edgett, 2012). Griffin (Cited in Gronlund, Sjodin, Frishammar, 2010:109) for instance notes that 60% of the surveyed companies used some form of staging methodology in product development. This method is widely used due to its ability of bringing some form of order in the complex process of product innovation and also due to its ability of reducing the amount of investment committed at the start of product development hence reducing risk (Gronlund, Sjodin, Frishammar, 2010:109; Jusko, 2010). Furthermore, it has been argued that the Stage-Gate model enables a rigorous control and evaluation of product development which enhances discipline in the process, and improves product efficiency and performance, and reduce the new product cycle time (Gronlund, Sjodin, Frishammar, 2010:109; Cooper and Edgett, 2012; Cooper, 1994; Cooper, Edgett, and Kleischmidt, 2002; Cooper, 2009). However, other scholars have identified weaknesses within the Stage-Gate process, especially in the gates sections noted to be the key source of the challenges (Becker, 2006: 2; Sethi and Iqbal (2008). Such critics note that Stage-Gate processes are essentially, slow, reduce innovation capability, have high overheads, treat all product the same, and that “they treat all choices as one off decisions” (Becker, 2006: 2). For instance, Sethi and Iqbal (2008: 118) note in their research study that rigorous gate controls in the model reduces product development flexibility which have the potential of negatively impacting learning within the process, taking into account that learning is critical when it comes to new product innovation and development. This view is supported by van Oorschot, et al (2010:828) who note that though the Stage-Gate process enables organisations to minimise uncertainties within the product development process through identifying shortcomings before resources are invested, the model may potentially lead to dismissal of projects which may be viewed as weak within the initial gate levels yet could have been ultimately successful upon completion. Due such weaknesses identified, various scholars have sought to modify and enhance the Stage-Gate process to be more flexible and applicable in innovation oriented sectors such as software development (Ettlie and Elsenbach, 2007; Valeri and Rozenfeld, 2004; Gronlund, Sjodin, and Frishammar, 2010). For instance Gronlund, Sjodin, and Frishammar (2010) develops a new model known as open Stage-Gate Process which systematically integrates principles of open innovation into the process and allows increment of innovation activities such as continuous assessment of core capabilities and the model. Overtime however, newer product development models have been suggested to enhance more flexibility in the product development process and also to provide a competitive advantage in product development away from what most people do. 2) Agile product development process Agile product development process mainly emerged from the software industry as software engineers began to follow a lightweight, iterative methodology in software development that were highly successful in developing software products as well were flexible ensuring continuous integration (Williams, 2012:73-74; Jusko, 2010). This process unlike the Stage-Gate process is characterised by rapid delivery of iterations, smaller teams, deeper customer collaboration and less documentation process. The agile process promotes frequent adaptation and inspection and has smaller teams that are capable of making changes rapidly as it may be needed. In essence therefore, agile processes conduct their activities in small increments with short iterations. Recent literature has strongly highlighted the growing popularity and interest in agile development processes and the implication that this has on new product developments (Sarker, 2009; Austin and Devin, 2009; Mangalaraj, et al, 2009; Karlsson and Agerfalk, 2009). While some have focused purely agile processes, others have recommended hybrid processes that combine agile methods and a structure staged process. Agile processes are more adaptable and flexible. Since the team involved in product development are fewer and the activities are done in “short intervals with small milestones”, changes can be easily made to the product during development without much loss in productivity (Barlow, et al, 2011: 27). Agile processes mainly focus on customer needs and therefore, there is high customer involvement where changes based on customer opinions can be continually incorporate into the product in the next iteration of product development. This process of product development often tends to be faster than staged and planned processes as the team mainly focuses on the act of developing the product, rather than reviewing what has been done so far as in the case of the stage-Gate process (Biazzon, 2009; Barlow, et al, 2011: 27-28). Furthermore, agile development processes promote learning, which is a critical component in any product development process (Amescua, et al, 2010). However, this process also has its weak points. For instance, requirements of the product to be developed are often not clearly defined at the start of a project and this may be detrimental for large complex products since core features may either be misunderstood or left out. Furthermore, it can hard to estimate how much of given resources are actually required. 3) Spiral product development process Spiral product development process just like agile processes have been linked to software development, whereby the whole process is characterised by multiple iterations (Jusko, 2010). It was first suggested Barry Boehm in 1988. As the name suggests, the process is spiral shaped starting at the centre and working outward. The key component of this model is risk assessment. In the model, first a prototype is developed and then is continually modified based on client feedbacks and also assessing risks. Each modification that is done carefully followed a structured set of steps, with each modification or iteration around the spiral becoming a more complete version of the product (Osterweil, 2011: 459). Boehm (Cited in Osterweil, 2011: 458) noted that each iteration is driven by a risk analysis where the out is the development of a prototype whose core purpose is to reduce the identified risks in product development. Within the model there are a series of three iterations that result to the development of prototype which provides the specification of the product. In this process, each iteration starts off with the development of prototypes meant to reduce risks in product development, then is followed by development specifications, design and testing. The last prototype hence acts as the blueprint for the product. After this, the actual product is then developed based on the prototyping outcome. Within each iteration are four phases which as specifying objectives, constraints and alternatives; evaluating the alternatives and analysing and resolving risks; Developing product; and planning the next phase of the process. This is as noted in the figure below. Where risks are identified to be great, the product development may be halted before a considerable amount of resources is invested (Osterweil, 2011). Source: Osterweil, 2011, pp. 461 The key significance of the spiral method is that with each prototype that is generated in each iteration process, the system moves closer to developing the final product. Spiral processes are therefore flexible and allow for easy and quicker changes. How fast the Spiral process is mainly depends by how fast the prototypes can be developed, and each prototype developed has a purpose: seeks to solve specific problems as well as refine requirements (Ulman, 2009: 4). This gives enhances flexibility, while keeping the product development process under control. A search through literature showed that spiral process is increasing considered in product development. For instance, Cooper (2008: 226) notes that a spiral process can be incorporated into the Stage-Gate process to make the process fast and adaptable. Other scholars have incorporated the concept of the spiral model to develop product development processes that are more thorough. For instance, Mengoni, Germani and Mandorli (2009: 45) developed a structured product development process for developing customised wellness products where they noted that virtual prototypes of the products were the key to effective product development, whereby the virtual prototypes were directly related to the product platforms in terms of their geometric dimensions hence helping in quickly making any changes in product development. Comparing and contrasting between the three processes Harmacioglu, et al (2007) argued that the new products that are developed by organisations in order to obtain a competitive advantage in the market are only as good as the process involved in developing them. This implies that the process used in developing products highly determine the success of such new products. Lu and Botha (2006: 2977) reflect this view by noting that a focus on the processes of product development is crucial and competitively significant to an organisation. A discussion of three out of numerous product development processes has truly shown that while these processes have some similar aspects and characteristics, they also have differences and each of the processes impact product development in different ways. These are discussed based on core areas where differences exist. Structured versus flexibility: Stage-Gate processes are mainly characterised an early and clear product definition and a clear distinction between the development of product concept and the implementation of the process: that is product design and production ramp up. This is unlike agile processes which seek to delay clearly defining the product but rather does this as an ongoing process since changes can be continually incorporate into the product during the iteration of product development. While spiral development processes actually define the product at the beginning of the process in order to develop a prototype, the product is often refined with increasing iterations in the process. Stage-Gate process is highly structured where the process is characterised by sequential stages in product development. This is what highly differentiates the Stage-Gate process from both agile and spiral processes which are considered more flexible and which through several iterations perfect the product offering. Unlike the staged process where a succeeding stage cannot be entered unless the previous stage has been successfully completed the agile and spiral development processes go through the entire development process a number of times in order to refine the product to required standards and specifications. Hence, while the Stage-Gate Process separates the concept development and implementation into stages where a preceding stage needs to be completed before the next stage, both agile and spiral development processes incorporate the whole process from concept development and implementation stages, where there is a constant and continued reviewed of the whole process right from concept development to the development of the product. The iterations in both agile and spiral processes make the processes flexible and fast to respond changes that may occur during product development where with each successive iteration, the product is increasing refined. Agile processes are more adaptable and flexible. Since the team involved in product development are fewer and the activities are done in “short intervals with small milestones” changes can be easily made to the product during development without much loss in productivity. Spiral processes are also flexible and allow for easy and quicker changes since with each prototype that is generated in each iteration process, changes can be easily incorporate to move closer to developing the final product. This is unlike the stage process, where one a stage is completed, there is no going back. Customer focused / involvement: Both agile and spiral processes have high customer involvement where changes based on customer opinions and evaluations are continually incorporated into the product in the next iteration of product development. The agile process is characterised by rapid delivery of iterations, smaller teams, deeper customer collaboration where the process promotes frequent adaptation and inspection. With each iteration, client needs and changes are incorporated, and the product is continually defined. The Spiral process on the other hand, develops the prototype of the product with each iteration which provides the specification of the product. With each prototype, risks involved in developing the product are identified, and where risks identified are too great, an organisation or client may potentially halt the development of the product. The Stage-Gate process though differs from the agile and spiral processes in this matter. Usually, the steps in product development are usually defined well before commencement of product development. Once a stage in development has been completed, reviewed and accepted by management, it is rarely repeated. Hence, customer involvement in product development is minimised. Process Control / risk analysis: the three processes also differ in the way they control risks within the product development process. In the Stage-Gate process, each stage is designed collect important information that will reduce risks and uncertainties in product development. Furthermore, the gates in the model reflect decision points where management reviews the output or deliverable of the prior stage. At this point, the decision to proceed or cancel the project, or rather repeat the previous stage is made by management at each of the gates intertwined within the stages of the model (Cooper, 2008: 215). These gates are meant to control the process where the management rigorously evaluate the deliverables of the previous stage to analyse both the performance of the process and the risks involved. Stage-Gate process enables organisations to minimise uncertainties within the product development process through identifying shortcomings before resources are invested, however, research shows that rigorous gate controls in the model reduces product development flexibility and the model may potentially lead to dismissal of projects which may be viewed as weak within the initial gate levels yet could have been ultimately successful upon completion (van Oorschot, et al, 2010:828; Sethi and Iqbal, 2008: 118). Similar to the Stage-Gate process, the spiral development process also has incorporated within its process risk analysis, but unlike the Stage-Process which is more concerned with control of the outcomes of each of the stages, the spiral development process is oriented towards risks analysis and mitigation with each prototype produced being specifically a solution to the risks analysed in the previous prototype and iteration. Each iteration in the Spiral process is driven by a risk analysis where the out is the development of a prototype whose core purpose is to reduce the identified risks in product development. With the Stage-Gate process, the core focus is on the deliverable of each stage and its viability. The agile development process does not have defined risk analysis procedures. However, risks are reduced through frequent inspection and adaptation of the processes as well as through activities that are done in “short intervals with small milestones”, where changes can be easily made to the product during development without much loss in productivity. Such short time spanned activities also reduce the risks involved in product development. Learning and innovation: it takes innovativeness to develop new unique products, while learning is critical when it comes to new product innovation and development (Sethi and Iqbal, 2008: 118). Therefore the capability of enhancing learning and innovation within a product development is critical consideration in product development processes. Stage-Gate process has been criticises in research due to its lack of innovativeness and learning. Stage-Gate process is essentially, slow, reduces innovation capability, has high overheads, treats all product the same, and “treats all choices as one off decisions” (Becker, 2006: 2). Sethi and Iqbal (2008: 118) notes that rigorous gate controls in the model reduces product development flexibility which have the potential of negatively impacting learning within the process. Jespersen (2012) supports this view noting that information dependency from one stage to the next does not create effective learning for managers in the product development process. This is not so for both agile and spiral development processes where the repeated iterations which seek to perfect the product provide an environment that promotes learning and innovative ideas on how a give product can be enhanced. Each iteration is a repeat of the entire process in a bid to address the shortcomings of the previous iteration. This enhances the learning process. Nature and Complexity of Products developed: How effective a product development process is, is mainly determined by the complexity of the products being developed. Agile processes have been known to support smaller less complex product development projects since infrastructure of the process is based on interdependencies which requires constant informal communication. Furthermore, since the agile processes depends on smaller teams and shorter interval activities, it is more suited to smaller less complex product than larger complex product development. In agile processes, the requirements of the product to be developed are often not clearly defined at the start of a project and this may be detrimental for large complex products since core features may either be misunderstood or left out (Barlow, 2011). This is mainly because a team working on a large complex product development project may face challenges in implementing coordinated adjustments of the product on a large scale. However, Stage-Gate process and spiral process which follow a set of defined steps bringing some form of order in the complex process of product innovation and also due to its ability of reducing the amount of investment committed at the start of product development hence reducing risk. In the spiral process each modification that is done carefully follows a structured set of steps, with each modification or iteration around the spiral becoming a more complete version of the product. within each iteration are four phases which as specifying objectives, constraints and alternatives; evaluating the alternatives and analysing and resolving risks; Developing product; and planning the next phase of the process (Osterweil, 2011). The last prototype hence acts as the blueprint for the product. Stage-Gate process provides a step by step process with requirements of the product clearly defined at the start of the development process. Hence each goal to be attained at each step helps complex product developments remain coherent and consistent in development. The Stage-Gate process also minimises risks and uncertainties within the product development process due to the thorough gate process after each stage. The agile and spiral development process on the other hand often tends to be faster than staged and planned processes as the development process mainly focuses on the act of developing the product, rather than reviewing what has been done so far as in the case of the stage-Gate process. Hence these two are more suitable to products that need to be released quickly in the market in order to take advantage of current needs, for instance new fashion trends. Conclusion In conclusion, this study sought to discuss three product development processes comparing and contrasting between them based on core areas where they differ. From the discussion, the core areas that differentiate Stage-Gate, agile, and spiral product development processes are mainly the whether they are structure or not and how flexible and adaptable the processes are to change; process and risk control in product development; customer involvement in the process; impact of the process on learning and innovation; and the nature and complexity of the products being developed. While stage-gate and spiral processes are more structured and follows a set of processes, agile and spiral processes are more flexible and adaptable rapidly changing to changing customer needs. On the other hand, Stage-Gate and Spiral processes manage risks in product development effectively, while agile and spiral processes provide environments where learning and innovation is promoted. While spiral and Stage-Gate processes are more suited for larger complex product development projects, agile processes are more suited to smaller and fast changing products which need to be released in the market while demand is still high and before competitors release their products. From this discussion, it can concluded that though the selection of a process to use is highly dependent on the products being developed and the organisations goals in developing the product, spiral product development essentially seems like a good process that can be applied in various product development scenarios successfully. In fact Cooper (2008:226) dies concur that the spiral development process can be incorporated into the Stage-Gate process to make the process fast and adaptable. References Ahmadi, R, Roemer, TA, and Wang, RH 2001, ‘Theory and Methodology: Structuring Product Development Processes,’ European Journal of Operational Research, 130, pp. 539-558. Amescua, A, Bermon, L, Garcia, J and Sanchez-Segura, MI 2010, ‘Knowledge Repository to Improve Agile Development Processes Learning,’ IET Software, 4, 6, pp. 434-444. Austin, R and Devin, L 2009, ‘Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Flexibility in Making Software: Toward a Contingency Theory of the Determinants of Development Process Design,’ Information Systems Research, 20,3, pp. 462–477. Barlow, JB, Giboney, JS, Keith, MJ, Wilson, DW, Schuetzler, RM, Lowry, PB, and Vance, A 2011, ‘Overview and Guidance on Agile Development in Large Organisations,’ Communications of the Association for information Systems, 29, 2, pp. 25-44. Becker, B 2006, ‘Re-Thinking the Stage-Gate Process- A reply to Critics,’ viewed 28 August 2012, at: < http://www.pd-advantage.com/images/RethinkingtheStage-Gate_Process_AReplytotheCritics.pdf> Bessant, J and Francis, D 2004, ‘Developing Parallel Routines for Radical Product Innovation,’ Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th, International Product Development Management Conference, Dublin, Ireland. Biazi, S 2009, ‘Flexibility, Structuration, and Simultaneity in New Product Development,’ The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, pp. 336-353 Cooper, RG 1990, ‘Stage-Gate Systems: A New Tool for Managing New Products,’ Business Horizons, 33, 3, pp. 44–54. Cooper, RG 1994, ‘Third Generation New Product Processes,’ Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 1, pp. 3–14. Cooper, RG 2008, ‘Perspective: The Stage-Gates Idea-To-Launch Process - Update, What's New and Nexgen Systems,’ Journal of Product Innovation management, 25, pp. 213-232 Cooper, RG 2009, ‘How Companies are Reinventing Their Idea-to-Launch Methodologies,’ Research Technology Management, March-April 2009, pp. 47-58. Cooper, RG and Edgett, SJ 2012, ‘Best Practises in the Idea-to-Launch Process and its Governance,’ Research Technology Management, March –April, 2012, pp. 43-55 Cooper, RG, Edgett, SJ, and Kleinschmidt, EJ 2002, ‘Optimising the Stage-Gate Process: What Best Practice Companies are Doing – Part One,’ Product Innovation Best Practises Series, viewed 28 August 2012, at: Ettlie, JE, and Elsenbach, JM 2007, ‘Modified Stage-Gate Regimes in New Product Development,’ Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, pp. 20-33 Fekri, R, Aliahmadi, A, and Fathain, M 2009, ‘Predicting a Model for Agile NPD Process with fuzzy Cognitive Map: The Case of Iranian Manufacturing Enterprises,’ International Journal of Manufacturing Technology, 41, pp. 1240-1260. Gronlund, J, Sjodin, DR, Frishammar, J 2010, ‘Open Innovation and the Stage-Gate Process: A Revised Model for New Product Development,’ California Management Review, 52, 3, pp. 106-132. Harmacioglu, N, McNally, RC, Calantone, RJ, Durmusoglu, SS 2007, ‘Your new product development (NPD) is only as good as your process: an exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation,’ R&D Management 37, 5, pp. 399-427. Jespersen, K 2012, 'Stage-to-Stage Information Dependency in the NPD Process: Effective Learning or a Potential Entrapment of NPD Gates?', Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 29, 2, pp. 257-274, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 August 2012. Jusko, J 2010, ‘New Models for Product Development,’ Industry Week, viewed 27 August 2012: < http://www.industryweek.com/articles/new_models_for_product_development_21570.aspx> Karlsson, F and Agerfalk, P 2009, ‘Exploring Agile Values in Method Configuration,’ European Journal of Information Systems, 18, 4, pp. 300–316. Lu, Q and Botha, B 2006, ‘Process Development: A Theoretical Framework,’ International Journal of Production Research, 44, 15, pp. 2977-2996. MacCormack, A and Verganti, R 2003, ‘Managing the Sources of Uncertainty: Matching Process and Context in Software Development,’ Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 3, pp. 217–232. Mangalaraj, G, Mahapatra, R, and Nerur, S 2009, ‘Acceptance of Software Process Innovations—The Case of Extreme Programming,’ European Journal of Information Systems, 18, 4, pp. 344–354 Mengoni, M, Germani, M, and Mandorli, F 2009, ‘A Structured agile Design approach to support Customisation in wellness product development,’ International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 22, 1, pp. 42-54. Oorschot, K, Sengupta, K, Akkermans, H, and van Wassenhove, L 2010, ‘Get Fat Fast: Surviving the Stage-Gate in NPD,’ Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 828-839. Phillips, W, Noke, H, Bessant, J, and Lamming, R 2004, ‘Beyond the Steady State: Managing Discontinuous Product and Process Innovation,’ AIM Research Working Paper no. 9, Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM). Sarker, S 2009, ‘Exploring Agility in Distributed Information Systems Development Teams: An Interpretive Study in an Offshoring Context,’ Information Systems Research, 20, 3, pp. 440–461. Sethi, R, and Iqbal, Z 2008, ‘Stage-Gate Controls, Learning Failure, and Adverse Effect on Novel New Products,’ Journal of Marketing, 72, pp. 118-134. Ulman, DG 2009, ‘Spiral Product Development at Syncromatics: A Case Study for The Mechanical Design Process,’ Oregon State University. Valeri, SG, and Rozenfeld, H 2004, ‘Improving the Flexibility of New Product Development (NPD) Through a New Quality Gate Approach,’ Transactions of the SDPS, 8, 3, pp. 17-36. Read More