Product Innovation Management - Essay Example

Question Solution: Rational Plans: the rational plan perspective basically deals with three aspects of product planning. These three legs of the rational plans consists of the careful planning to launch a product for lucrative market, team based approach to execute these plans with the blessings of the senior management. The key feature of this approach of the production innovation management is the fact that the success is achieved through superior product planning with the help of cross functional teams. Through rational planning, product advantage is achieved through concentrating on the core competencies of the firm. Methods used for analysis of the analysis are bivariate in nature as many variables are involved with single informant. (Brown and Eisenhardt). Communication Web: this stream of product planning basically stress upon the development of teams based on their communication. It is based on the premise that better the communication between the team members and outsiders, the better will be the performance of the teams hence greater successful will be achieved in product development. The communication flows internally as well as externally. Disciplined Problem Solving: this stream of product planning evolved out of Japanese management practices. This practice involved relatively independent planning by the team members backed up by the disciplined backing from the top management. This approach is considered a very fast development process and is also considered as a high quality product concept. (Brown and Eisenhardt). Differences between three approaches: the key difference between three approaches is their focus on the product development process. The rational plan approach outlines that the success is achieved through high quality product development in superior markets whereas the other two approaches are more internal in nature as the success largely depend upon the flow of information within and outside the organization. Rational planning process concentrates on the development through core competencies of the firm whereas the disciplined problem focuses on the product integrity that fits the customers the firm. Business Network Development The foremost difference between the business network development perspectives is with the communication web as both approaches focus on the relationships between the internal as well as external actors involved in the teams. (Anderson, Hakansson and Johanson). However the major difference between the business network development and the other two product development approach is the fact that the Business Network development approach focus on building relationships between the various firms conceptualized as the coordinating actors. Though there are no clear similarities between the three approaches and the business network development however all approaches require an interlocking approach between the activities, resources based on mutuality of the self interests of the various actors. Since all these approaches advocate the use of teams whether internal as well as external therefore there is a very subtle homogeneity between the approaches. Apart from showing subtle connections between the these approaches, there is also a very clear distinction regarding the execution of internal control within these approaches as almost all the approaches differ on the execution methodology of the product development process. Question#2 Organizational routines may be systemized as the generative system with internal structures and systems and dynamics. Although the term has been in circulation for decades, we are just beginning to understand the nature of organizational routines.  One problem is that organizational routines tend to look different depending on one’s point of view.  When viewed from a distance, any particular organizational routine can exhibit a great deal of continuity over time, which leads some theorists to emphasize their role in organizational inertia and stability.  Closer observation of routines reveals that they can change continuously and endogenously, which leads others to emphasize their role in flexibility and change. The distinction between the ostensive (abstract pattern) and performative (specific actions) is an important basis for understanding routines. On one hand, routines can be characterized as abstract patterns that participants use to guide, account for, and refer to specific performances of a routine.  We refer to this as the “ostensive” aspect .On the other hand; routines can be characterized as actual performances by specific people, at specific times, in specific places. We refer to this as the “performative” aspect. There are many related distinctions that can be applied to organizational routines such as structure/agency, objective/subjective; and disposition/behavior.  While these distinctions are useful, we adopted the terminology because it focuses attention on collective performances and on the ability of both participants and observers to create the ostensive aspect from these performances. The language best expresses the aspects of organizational routines that are needed to explain their generative properties, as observed in empirical field studies. Without these two aspects, a routine cannot produce “repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions, carried out by multiple actors” Like structure and agency, these two aspects are mutually constitutive; the ostensive does not simply guide performances (as a script guides a play); it is also created from the performances. The organizational routines thus are helpful in generating coherent teams at informal level which flourish innovation which results in product development specially the use of organizational routines in the perspective of black boxes where input and outputs can map the internal structure of various external actors and their teams. Limitations The inherent nature of the organizational nature to be fluid in nature as they continue to change endogenously and independently can create significant conflict of interests between the actors working in the product development teams. This approach is more informal in nature and differs from business development networks in its execution as for as approaching the various organizational actors are concerned. From the performative perspective, routines consist of many performances of patterns of actions.  These actions are performed by specific people, for specific reasons, at specific times, in specific places. Examining and comparing performances is an important way of understanding the relationship between context and action.  Since the patterns of action are different therefore the business developmental networks produce a different set of interlinking between the various actors. Question#3 Stage Gate Model: the Stage gate model is an approach in the product development and innovation which outlines as to how to manage, direct and accelerate the innovation process. (Cooper). The common purpose of the Stage Gate Model is to provide a framework for better management of projects and to ensure that the important success factors of the project are dealt with. Many companies use their own variant of the Stage-Gate model, but they are basically designed in the same way and based on the same principles. Visible to the whole organization and obtaining the highest customer value for the least development effort within a given time frame. The Stage-Gate model also provides a common language and mutual understanding within the organization, which reduces the risks in the projects. The overall logic behind the use of the Stage Gate model is the fact that it helps organizations to innovate by exploring various aspects of the product development. It not only provides a quality control mechanism but it also help to achieve results in speedier way through the help of parallel processing of product control processes. The overall structure of the Stage Gate model is based on stages and gates. Stages are periods of activity within a project and involve many different project team members. In order to proceed from one stage to the next, a gate has to be passed. Gates are passed during gate review meetings, which is when the project team decides whether the predefined Gate criteria have been met based on key decision points with well defined criteria. The process is driven further through the use of effective gates since gatekeeper continue to check on the various aspects of the product planning process like financial attractiveness, supply chain options as well as many other critical issues. If at the gates, things don’t work, the process is either revisited or stopped altogether. Limitations: Though the Stage Gates Model also talks about the cross functional empowered teams like other approaches to the product innovation however its focus is too complex to comprehend. The staged process and the screening of the ideas is done initially and if any potential idea which has the potential to be developed into a successful product is rejected based on the rigid staged process than it can be potentially detrimental to the overall organizational purposes. The evaluation of the research and development process in multi-layered set up where the ideas and processes are evolved in parallel environment can be other potential limitation to the model as the lack of coherence and clarity of the objectives as well as that of the process of the idea origination and idea implementation may create conflict of interests between the players involved in the various stages of the process. Besides as the model progress into the next generation stage gate process, the reliance on fuzzy or incomplete information may create limitations on the whole process as the lack of information may not help creating coherence between the teams. The business development perspective can be updated with the developments in the stage gate model especially with respect to the development of the mutual teams with common interests besides aligning the activities and processes besides allowing fluidity of information between the teams. References Anderson, James C, Hakan Hakansson and Jan Johanson. "Dyadic Business Relationships within a Business Network Context." Journal of Marketing 58 (1994): 1-15. Brown, Shona N and Kathleen M Eisenhardt. "Product Development:Past Research, Present Findings,and future directions." Academy of Management Review 20.2 (1995): 343-378. Cooper, Robert G. "The New Product Process: The Stage - Gatem Game Plan." Cooper, Robert G. Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to launch. n.d. Read More