Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Product Development: Managing Uncertainty and Knowledge Integration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Product Innovation Management

Part of the book series: Management for Professionals ((MANAGPROF))

Abstract

Product development activities are aimed at transforming new feasible product ideas into profitable products. This transformation requires the progressive reduction of uncertainty about market needs and technological choices. Market uncertainty arises from the complexity in translating customer needs (which change over time) into functional and emotional product attributes; technical uncertainty is linked to the degree of novelty in product and manufacturing process design decisions.

In designing a product development process, it is essential to distinguish two kinds of problems: the strategic problem of risk and uncertainty reduction; and the organizational problem of cross-functional integration in the formulation of design decisions.

In this chapter we first address the strategic problem of uncertainty reduction with the Stage-Gate model, exploring the concept of anticipation: the idea that the product development must be front-loaded with activities that allow to anticipate the resolution of knowledge gaps and aggressively reduce uncertainty in the early phases of the process. Then we present the recent evolution of the Stage-Gate model towards a process that is consistent with turbulent market conditions, in which the focus on anticipation is combined with reaction—the ability to keep the product concept open, preserving options in the advanced stages of development (flexible Stage-Gate). Finally, we focus on the role of integration events in tackling the organizational problem of cross-functional integration and the emergence of spiral and lean approaches to product development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Stage-Gate model was developed and disseminated by Cooper (1988, 2017a).

  2. 2.

    See Koen et al. (2001), Ulrich et al. (2020), Terwiesch and Ulrich (2009).

  3. 3.

    Cooper (2017b).

  4. 4.

    Cooper (1988) and Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1986).

  5. 5.

    See Smith (2007).

  6. 6.

    The basic structure of the Electrolux process is illustrated in Committed to Quality, Electrolux QBook (2016).

  7. 7.

    Terwiesch et al. (2002).

  8. 8.

    Clark and Fujimoto (1991), Wheelwright and Clark (1992).

  9. 9.

    Terwiesch et al. (2002).

  10. 10.

    The limits and application problems of the Stage-Gate model are discussed in Cooper (2008).

  11. 11.

    A synthesis on how to adapt the development process to the level of environmental uncertainty can be found in MacCormack et al. (2012).

  12. 12.

    A dominant design is how a product is “supposed to look and operate” in the minds of users and producers; it is the de facto standard in terms of fundamental technical choices (see Utterback, 1994).

  13. 13.

    For a systematic review and a critical analysis of product development flexibility, see Biazzo (2009).

  14. 14.

    Ballé et al. (2016) and Morgan and Liker (2018).

  15. 15.

    The evolution of the Stage-Gate system towards adaptability and flexibility is discussed in Cooper (2008, 2014).

  16. 16.

    Verganti (1999).

  17. 17.

    See Ballé et al. (2016), Ward and Sobek (2014), Morgan and Liker (2006), Kennedy et al. (2014), Smith (2007).

  18. 18.

    See Ward et al. (1995), Sobek et al. (1998, 1999), Morgan and Liker (2006), Ballé et al. (2016).

  19. 19.

    See Sobek (1997), Smith (2007).

  20. 20.

    See Verganti (1999) and Thomke (1998, 2001).

  21. 21.

    Iansiti (1995).

  22. 22.

    See Takeuchi and Nonaka (1986). Cooper (2008) uses the term “functional, phased-review” process. See also Buijs (2003). Another expression typically used to refer to this traditional development systems is the “over-the-wall” approach (Scott 1998).

  23. 23.

    See Blank and Dorf (2012) and Boehm (1988).

  24. 24.

    See Sommer et al. (2015), Cooper (2016) and Cooper and Sommer (2016).

  25. 25.

    See Blank and Dorf (2012), Blank (2013), Ries (2011).

  26. 26.

    See Ward and Sobek (2014), Oosterwal (2010), Mascitelli (2011), Radeka (2017), Morgan and Liker (2018).

  27. 27.

    For a comprehensive review on product development decisions, see Krishnan and Ulrich (2001).

  28. 28.

    The example is taken from Ward and Sobek (2014) and integrated with internal documents of Kongsberg Automotive, which describe in detail their development process—called KBD (Knowledge Based Development).

  29. 29.

    A set-based design approach is characterized by a progressive narrowing of a set of options over time. The “last responsible moment” idea refers to the ability to preserving options and delay as much as possible a critical decision without dramatically impacting the project deadlines or the development costs (see Ward et al., 1995; Sobek et al., 1999; Kennedy et al., 2014).

  30. 30.

    Krafcik (1988).

  31. 31.

    Womack and Jones (1996).

  32. 32.

    The 12 key LPD principles summarize the results of two previous works (Biazzo et al., 2016; Panizzolo et al., 2014).

  33. 33.

    Morgan and Liker (2018).

  34. 34.

    See, for example, the classic work of Adler (1995).

  35. 35.

    Thomke and Fujimoto (2000).

  36. 36.

    See Clark (1989) and Ward and Sobek (2014).

  37. 37.

    See Danese and Filippini (2012).

  38. 38.

    See Ward et al., 1995; Sobek et al., 1999; Kennedy et al., 2014).

  39. 39.

    Morgan and Liker (2018).

  40. 40.

    Radeka (2012).

  41. 41.

    See Ward and Sobek (2014); Morgan and Liker (2006); Ward et al. (2018).

  42. 42.

    Kennedy et al. (2014).

  43. 43.

    Clark and Wheelwright (1992).

  44. 44.

    Clark and Fujimoto (1990).

  45. 45.

    The concept of portfolio cadence was introduced by Wheelwright and Clark (1992)—the “development train schedule”—and was taken up, many years later, by Oosterwal (2010) and Ward and Sobek (2014).

References

  • Adler, P. S. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BallĂ©, M., Morgan, J., & Sobek, D. K. (2016). Why learning is central to sustained innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(3), 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biazzo, S. (2009). Flexibility, structuration, and simultaneity in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(3), 336–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biazzo, S., Panizzolo, R., & de Crescenzo, A. M. (2016). Lean management and product innovation: A critical review. In A. Chiarini, P. Found, & N. Rich (Eds.), Understanding the lean enterprise - strategies, methodologies, and principles for a more responsive organization. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2012). The startup owner’s manual: The step-by-step guide for building a great company. K&S Ranch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, 21(5), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buijs, J. (2003). Modelling product innovation processes, from linear logic to circular chaos. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(2), 76–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. B. (1989). Project scope and project performance: The effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management Science, 35(10), 1247–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1990). The power of product integrity. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization and Management in the World Auto Industry. Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. B., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1992). Organizing and leading “heavyweight” development teams. California Management Review, 34(3), 9–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1988). The new product process: A decision guide for management. Journal of Marketing Management, 3(3), 238–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gate idea-to-launch process—Update, what’s new, and nexgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2014). What’s next?: After stage-gate. Research-Technology Management, 57(1), 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2016). Agile–stage-gate hybrids: The next stage for product development blending agile and stage-gate methods can provide flexibility, speed, and improved communication in new-product development. Research-Technology Management, 59(1), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2017a). Idea-to-launch gating systems: Better, faster, and more agile. Research-Technology Management, 60(1), 48–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2017b). Winning at new products. Accelerating the process from idea to launch (5th ed.). Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1986). An investigation into the new product process: Steps, deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3(2), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016). Agile-stage-gate: New idea-to-launch method for manufactured new products is faster, more responsive. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danese, P., & Filippini, R. (2012). Direct and mediated effects of product modularity on development time and product performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(2), 260–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M. (1995). Shooting the rapids: Managing product development in turbulent environments. California Management Review, 38(1), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, B. M., Sobek, D. K., & Kennedy, M. N. (2014). Reducing rework by applying set-based practices early in the systems engineering process. Systems Engineering, 17(3), 278–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D’Amore, R., Elkins, C., Herald, K., Incorvia, M., Johnson, A., Karol, R., Seibert, R., Slavejkov, A., & Wagner, K. (2001). Providing clarity and a common language to the “fuzzy front end”. Research-Technology Management, 44(2), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krafcik, J. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. MIT Sloan Management Review, 30(1), 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management Science, 47(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobek, D. K., Liker, J. K., & Ward, A. (1998). Another look at how Toyota integrates product development. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 36–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormack, A., Crandall, W., Henderson, P., & Toft, P. (2012). Do you need a new product-development strategy? Research-Technology Management, 55(1), 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascitelli, R. (2011). Mastering LPD: A practical, event-driven process for maximizing speed, profits and quality. Technology Perspectives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. M., & Liker, J. K. (2006). The Toyota product development system. Productivity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. M., & Liker, J. K. (2018). Designing the future: How ford, Toyota, and other world-class organizations use lean product development to drive innovation and transform their business. McGraw Hill Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterwal, D. (2010). The lean machine: How Harley-Davidson drove top-line growth and profitability with revolutionary lean product development. AMACOM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panizzolo, R., Bernardel, F., & Biazzo, S. (2014). Lean transformation in small and medium enterprises: Practices, enabling factors. In V. Modrák & P. SemanÄŤo (Eds.), Handbook of research on design and management of lean production systems. IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radeka, K. (2012). The mastery of innovation: A field guide to lean product development. CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Radeka, K. (2017). The shortest distance between you and your new product: How innovators use rapid learning cycles to get their best ideas to market faster. Chesapeake Research Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries, E. (2011). Lean startup. Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, G. (1998). The new age of new product development: Are we there yet? R&D Management, 28(4), 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. (2007). Flexible product development: Building agility for changing markets. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobek, D.K. (1997), Principles that shape product development systems: A Toyota-Chrysler comparison, PhD Thesis, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobek, D. K., Ward, A., & Liker, J. K. (1999). Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Management Review, 40(2), 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product development performance through Agile/Stage-Gate hybrids: The next-generation Stage-Gate process? Research-Technology Management, 58(1), 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review, 64(1), 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terwiesch, C., Loch, C. H., & Meyer, A. D. (2002). Exchanging preliminary information in concurrent engineering: Alternative coordination strategies. Organization Science, 13(4), 402–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2009). Innovation tournaments: Creating and selecting exceptional opportunities. Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomke, S. (2001). Enlightened experimentation: The new imperative for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 66–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomke, S., & Fujimoto, T. (2000). The effect of “front-loading” problem-solving on product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(2), 128–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomke, S. H. (1998). Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Management Science, 44(6), 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K. T., Eppinger, S. D., & Yang, M. C. (2020). Product design and development (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verganti, R. (1999). Planned flexibility: Linking anticipation and reaction in product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(4), 363–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, A., Liker, J. K., Cristiano, J. J., & Sobek, D. K. (1995). The second Toyota paradox: Delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Management Review, 36(3), 43–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, A. C., Oosterwal, D. P., & Sobek, D. K., II. (2018). Visible knowledge for flawless design: The secret behind lean product development. Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, A. C., & Sobek, D. K., II. (2014). Lean product and process development. Lean Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992), Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review, March–April, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your organisation. Simon & Shuster.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padua, Padova, Italy

    Stefano Biazzo & Roberto Filippini

Authors
  1. Stefano Biazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Filippini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Biazzo, S., Filippini, R. (2021). Product Development: Managing Uncertainty and Knowledge Integration. In: Product Innovation Management. Management for Professionals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75011-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation