Towards lean product lifecycle management - Ingenta Connect

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JMTM 17,7

Towards lean product lifecycle management A framework for new product development

866 Received February 2005 Revised September 2005 Accepted November 2005

Peter Hines, Mark Francis and Pauline Found Cardiff University Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre, Cardiff, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss a holistic framework for guiding applied research within the field of new product development. This work is a precursor to developing a framework for undertaking lean product lifecycle management (PLM). Design/methodology/approach – The research approach taken in this work has been based around theory development from a review and synthesis of a range of primary industry cases, practical approaches and partial solutions available within the existing literature. Findings – The result is a six-step theoretical framework that can be used as a point of reference for academics discussing the development of systemic approaches to the subject, as well as those from industry searching for a framework for their new product development activity. At this point the framework as a whole has not been tested, although each of the various elements has been successfully applied in isolation. The implications of this paper are that the existing technical product development literature has a number of gaps and weaknesses. These include, but are not limited to: a propensity to be functionally myopic, tending to be mostly dominated by marketing or quality/engineering perspective; a lack of focus on the human aspects of product development and a lack of focus on real world environments that often involve a high volume of medium to low innovation products being developed simultaneously. Research limitations/implications – Owing to space limitations, we have not covered in detail the wider process of lean PLM which will be covered in future work Originality/value – The originality of this paper is not in its constituent framework elements but more in its synthesis of existing best practice from industry, consultancy and academia into a coherent framework for the achievement of effective lean PLM. Keywords New products, Product life cycle, Knowledge management, Plans Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Vol. 17 No. 7, 2006 pp. 866-887 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1741-038X DOI 10.1108/17410380610688214

Introduction The last twenty years have seen a significant contribution from Lean thinking at both academic and practitioner levels. Indeed in many industries such as the automotive sector, Lean thinking is a way of life. However, the widespread understanding of lean approaches by academics and industrialists often lags the leading edge of lean evolution (Hines et al., 2004). The most recent evolution of lean according to these authors is into a lean value system. This lean value system encompasses a value-adding network of operations across companies, with the goal of providing a series of contingent value proposition to The authors would like to acknowledge that this work was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of UK.

individual final consumers. Within this lean value system, and of relevance to this paper, are two notable features. First, the close integration of strategy formation with operational improvement and second, the focus on a range of other contingent processes away from Lean thinking’s traditional focus on order fulfilment activities. Within the first of these areas, the focus has been developing a seamless transition between corporate strategy and the activities undertaken to achieve this strategic intent. The linking pin for this integration is through a cascading of strategy formation through strategy deployment into key business processes as shown in Figure 1. The primary alignment vehicle here is to understand an organization’s critical success factors and aligning the business to these factors by the deployment of contingent performance measures and targets by business process (Hines and Taylor, 2000). The importance of new product development (NPD) within product lifecycle management (PLM) has been highlighted by virtually all businesses that have adopted this contemporary lean approach. Within the context of this paper, we will refer specifically to physical products and define NPD as the creation of a new product from the generation of an initial concept or idea through to the decision to commercialise the product. We then refer to new product introduction (NPI) as the part of the process from this point through to the product launch, mass production and associated marketing support for the product. We will refer to PLM as a wider process which in addition to NPD and NPI also extends through the delivery, various upgrades, service, repair and retirement of products. With a few notable exceptions, for instance Clark and Fujimoto (1991), Tsuzuki (1993) and Uchida (1993), this key process has until recently received scant attention from the lean thinking world, although a sizeable technical product development literature does exist. However, the last few years have seen the publication of a number of lean articles and texts on this subject (Cusumano and

Towards lean product lifecycle management 867

Figure 1. Strategic thinking as applied to the lean organisation

JMTM 17,7

Nobeoka, 1998; Sobek et al., 1998; Sobek et al., 1999; Hines et al., 2000; Mynott, 2000; Ward, 2001; Tanaka, 2002). Although these publications have started discussion, this material is often partial or incomplete in its coverage. Thus, at present there is a lack of a coherent theoretical outline for a lean system for PLM. This paper is designed to be a first step in correcting this.

868

Relation to existing theories and work The academic literature concerning an understanding of the innovative behaviour in organizations is vast (Wolf, 1994) and the recent publications on Lean NPD mentioned in the introduction to this paper form a small subset. This narrower technical literature has a number of defining characteristics. It is applied in nature and contains significant contributions made by practitioners and consultants. It also concentrates on suggesting “solutions” to a number of problems that it establishes to be encountered commonly within the NPD process. The problems addressed by this literature form two groups. The first of these are concerned with development process effectiveness; the subsequent market success of the newly developed product. Specific problems within this group include lack of alignment of the product development strategy with the wider business strategic plan, unnecessary development activity, lack of understanding of customer requirements, and ultimately high new product failure rates. The second group of problems are concerned with the efficiency of the development process itself. These include the lack of a formal or standardised process, ineffective control of high volume development environments, poor internal communications and lack of common focus. They also include an inability to improve or learn from mistakes, and ultimately poor project deadline achievement and fiscal control. As a consequence of this problem-solution focus, the technical product development literature adopts as its major theme of study the identification of the best practices (traits) associated with alleviating these problems. Two distinct types of writing emerge from a critical review of this technical product development literature, which we refer to as the winners and losers and World Class Performance genres,, respectively, (Francis, 2005a). Whilst both consider the best practice traits referred to above, they each address a subtly different problem and emphasise different product development practices. The terms practice, trait and success factor are used interchangeably within this technical literature, and are said to refer to the “. . . tools, techniques and methods . . . that are most commonly associated with firms that are more successful in developing new products” (Griffin, 1997, p. 429) Winners and losers research The label winners and losers research is derived from the problem addressed by the publications of this genre. This is expressed by Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1993) as “What key product development success factors separate the winners from the losers?” Writers attempt to identify a universal set of critical success factors for firms to follow and critical failure factors to avoid, maximising the probability of launching a successful new product (Cooper, 1988). Success to this genre is almost universally taken to mean commercial success. Therefore, winners are commercially successful new products and losers are commercially unsuccessful. This interpretation of success concentrates on

externally-focused financial and market output performance measures, with customer satisfaction and acceptance being particularly important indicators of market performance (Barclay et al., 1992; Griffin, 1997). Commonly cited financial measures include development project return on investment along with profit and revenue contribution of products commercialised over the last (n) years. Two other common measures derive from Booz, Allen and Hamilton’s (1982) attrition curve of new product ideas, a key concept within this literature. The first of these is the success and failure rate as a percentage of all products commercialised. The second measure is the kill (drop) rate per stage of the development process, expressed as a percentage of all the concepts developed. As a consequence, winners and losers research is characterised by the promotion of Cooper’s (1988) stage gate process model, whereby go (proceed) or kill decisions are made at each stage gate in an attempt to screen out product concepts that are likely to result in commercial failure. The firms that act as the primary sources of evidence in this genre are dominated by US-based fortune 500 brand manufacturing enterprises with General Motors, IBM, Du Pont, Polaroid and 3M being commonly cited as exemplars. An emphasis is also placed upon revolutionary rather than evolutionary types of development project with the most important success factor identified as being the development of a “unique and superior product” (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1993). It is usually assumed that the innovating firm aspires to market leadership and to compete on the basis of differentiation rather than cost. This is a natural competitive strategy for many of its exemplar firms as they are adept brand manufacturing enterprises. Cycle time reduction is generally rejected as a basis for achieving competitive advantage even for a “fast follower” strategy (Crawford, 1992; Griffin, 1997). World Class Performance research The body of literature labelled World Class Performance derives its name from the research problem that preoccupies its publications. This centres on the question, “What are the product development practices that are associated with firms whose performance is consistently the best in the world in their sector?” This suggests a different conception of product development success and it’s measurement than the previous genre. Drawing upon quality theory concepts, World Class Performance research considers a successful new product to be a function of a quality-capable development process. Performance measurement systems discussed within this genre consequently emphasise internally-focused measures of the development process itself. These include quality, cost, time and productivity criteria that are regarded as highly interrelated (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Wheelwright and Clark, 1992). Commonly cited quality measures include measures of conformance to product design, such as the number of engineering change orders per project and the number of development projects started and completed versus plan. Time-related measures include cycle time from concept to launch (and per stage) and the frequency of NPIs. Productivity and cost measures typically emphasise engineering hours and the cost of materials and tooling per project (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Dimancescu and Dwenger, 1996). As in the previous genre, the World Class Performance literature refers to a cadre of established brand manufacturing enterprises; these are seen as exemplars whose pattern of product development practices are to be deconstructed and followed. The


JMTM 17,7

870

automotive and electronics/IT industries are well represented. However, the exemplars from this body of literature are drawn from Japan and Europe with Toyota, Honda and Sony being held in particularly high esteem. Earlier World Class Performance publications such as those by Clark and Fujimoto (1991) and Wheelwright and Clark (1992) also stress revolutionary (breakthrough) type development projects and concern themselves with the engineering aspects involved in Research and Development (R&D) and the design and commercialisation of products utilising new technology. Subsequent publications of this type (such as Dimancescu and Dwenger, 1996; Smith and Reinertsen, 1998) place a greater emphasis on evolutionary (incremental) innovation. Whilst the potential for cost-based competition via incremental improvement programmes is recognised, there is an assumption that firms intend to compete on the basis of product differentiation. In this context, differentiation is derived from technical or engineering superiority and a faster time-to-market capability. Concurrent engineering, concurrent enterprising and the lean NPD literature Concurrent engineering, and its wider value chain successor paradigm concurrent enterprising (CE) has a number of clearly discernible characteristics that include a process rather than technological emphasis, customer focus and the parallel processing of activity steps. These characteristics also include early and total contributor integration, design for manufacturing and a holistic lifecycle scope (synthesised from Winner et al., 1988; Stevens et al., 1998; ESoNET, 2004). The previous summary of the two genres of technical product development literature reveals the clear influence of the CE school upon them, and its especial influence upon the World Class Performance genre. The influence of the CE school is also discernible within the recent emergent body of work that forms what we have called the Lean NPD subset of this technical literature. This is witnessed in the form of the Set Based Concurrent Engineering (SBCE) technique. Along with knowledge management and delayed decision making, SBCE is argued by proponents to be key to the Toyota NPD system, every bit as unique and effective as its Toyota production system peer (Kamath and Liker, 1994; Ward et al., 1995; Sobek et al., 1999; Liker, 2004). Orthodoxy and gaps A comparison of the two genres discussed in the previous section reveals that orthodoxy has emerged within the technical product development literature (Francis, 2005b). This is in some ways remarkably similar to the orthodoxy that has emerged within the Lean thinking literature that addresses its traditional order fulfilment activities. Methodologically, both genres of the technical product development literature engage with mid-level managers as their main source of research informants. They draw extensively from (often the same) large brand manufacturing enterprise exemplars in the automotive and electronics/IT sectors for their commentary on innovation, although the two genres do differ in their emphasis on the country of origin of these firms. Both genres also lack a contingent view and adopt a deterministic, teleological approach that is directed at constructing a pre-determined development process end-state. This end-state is conceptualised in terms of

techno-structural critical success factors or best practice traits deemed to be exhibited by these exemplar firms. These are in turn established via regression analysis, benchmarking, or a variance theory approach whereby “a process story logic” is constructed to infer the relationship between exhibited practices and subsequent company-level performance. This situation has resulted in the emergence of a dominant approach across the technical product development literature that emphasises market leadership based upon the high innovation, low volume, single product development environments of durable goods manufacturers from these two sectors. A number of opportunities therefore exist to further the body of academic and practical knowledge on this subject. The corollary of the above is to conduct research in different sectors. It is also to conduct research in the lower innovation, high volume, multiple product development environments of the type commonly found in the consumer-packaged goods and fast moving consumer goods industries. Yet another opportunity is offered by broadening the current techno-structural focus of this literature to encompass a true socio-technical systems approach. This would see the people involved in these processes become the subject of study with the aim of designing good human relations into the technical workflow (Trist and Bamford, 1951; Belout and Gauvreau, 2004). This focus differs markedly from the current state of the literature where people are largely regarded as passive and an extension to the machinery and workflow. Research approach The research approach taken in this work has been based around theory development. This theoretical viewpoint has been reached by synthesising a range of primary industry cases, practical approaches and partial solutions available within the existing literature. The industry cases have been studied via a range of research approaches including direct observation, semi-structured interview and action based research (Hakim, 1987; Hartley, 1994). Each of these cases has helped to build our understanding but all are instrumental in their nature (Stake, 1998). Thus, this paper has not been designed directly to report on the cases but rather to use them to help understand what the firms are doing and then to collate this knowledge with other sources into a coherent systemic approach. Towards a theoretical framework The theoretical model that has been developed is made up of six distinct stages which start with the development and understanding of customer (including internal strategic) needs and establishes a benchmark as-is current state map of how PLM is undertaken. The approach then outlines how a single project can be managed more effectively from both a technical and people-based perspective. The output of this is the development of an improved future state for managing individual product lifecycles or projects. However, in contrast to other approaches the outline goes on to extend to a full process multi-product environment and describes some of the key steps required for effective lean overall process management. Each of the six steps will be reviewed in the following section.


JMTM 17,7

872

Understanding customer needs The fundamental starting place for any lean process is to focus on customer needs, the first principle of Lean Thinking as defined by Womack and Jones (1996). However, in contrast to Womack and Jones’s narrow definition of the customer as the external end-user of the product, we will extend our definition of the voice of the customer to include a minimum of two types of customer: (1) The external buyer or end-user of the product; and (2) The internal buyer or end-user of the process under consideration (Figure 2). Customer 1. Within a typical company it may be possible to define a series of external customers. Taking a simple example of a manufacturer of pet food, the following generic external customers may be defined along the value stream: . Intermediary #1: buyer for the supermarket chain; . Intermediary #2: supermarket store manager; . Intermediary #3: supermarket shelf-stacker; . Decision maker: purchaser of pet food, for instance person doing a family’s weekly shop; . Intermediary #4: person carrying the shopping back home; and . End consumer: the dog. In order to decide what features, attributes and value-proposition are required the views of each of these players (and possibly more) need to be considered. A number of approaches can be used to understand the type of requirements for the product including contextual inquiry, focus group, questionnaire, antenna shop (trial selling of small batches of pre-mass production product, the classic example being the Akihabara electronic shop district in Tokyo).

Figure 2. Lean system for PLM

In order to assimilate this material into a more usable form a number of translation approaches are required such as Kano analysis (Clausing, 1994) or order qualifiers and order winners analysis (Hill, 2000). Kano analysis helps organizations to understand whether their (potential or actual) products provide basic, performance or excitement value to customers. Using a car example as an illustration; basic requirements may include: a standard radio and that the car will start on a cold morning; performance requirements may include top speed and acceleration; excitement requirements may include unexpected features such as traction control and rain-sensing window-wipers. Hill’s order qualifiers and order winner analysis takes a similar tack with order qualifiers referring to features that are “musts” (or basic in Kano terminology) and order winners features that might close a sale (including performance and excitement criteria in Kano analysis). This focus on value, rather than cost, contrasts with the rather narrow customer value equation discussed by Womack and Jones (1996). Customer 2. In creating a lean value focused organization, it is important to focus all activities on what is required and to stop doing activities that create no value. In order to do this it is essential to have an alignment between strategic goals and operational activity as shown in Figure 1. Within the context of PLM it is necessary to focus this process on the few areas that will provide most value to the organization itself. Space limits the discussion of a full strategy deployment process here (Hines and Taylor, 2000; Dale, 2002). However, of relevance here, the PLM process is provided with a series of contingent performance measures and targets; most probably set over a five-year rolling period. These measures are likely to include some past-related measures (such as percentage of sales from new products launched over the last n months), current measures (such as the customer perception of existing products and alignment with the organization’s brand strategy) and future related measures (such as the level and depth of appropriate skills and competences within the staff involved in the PLM process). When the PLM team is developing new products it will not only focus on the needs of the external customer (Customer 1) but also on those of the internal customer (Customer 2). This will help ensure not only satisfied external customers but also an aligned product strategy and an effective organization. Value stream mapping The second step in the framework is value stream mapping. The mapping of the current state of a process and the development of a future state is an essential part of Lean Thinking. However, traditional approaches either using one tool (Rother and Shook, 1998) or multiple approaches (Hines and Rich, 1997; Hines et al., 1998, Jones and Womack, 2002), have almost universally only been applied to the order fulfilment process within or between organizations. However, the effectiveness of these approaches has been well established and a similar, but contextualised tool is required for the PLM process. Although a number of value stream mapping tools may be applied to the process (Hines et al., 2000), the most appropriate is the four fields mapping tool first described in the english language by Dimancescu (1992). The tool (Figures 3 and 4) is used to describe an existing (or planned) project within four fields: (1) The cross functional participants or stakeholders; (2) The various phases (in this case for a request for quotation);


JMTM 17,7

874

Figure 3. An example of a four fields map current state map

(3) A flow chart of the detailed activities within the phases; and (4) The standards by which these processes are performed. Subsequent application of the tool to particular projects has shown that the addition of two further fields is of great benefit: (5) A time line showing total elapsed time; and (6) A resource line showing the amount of person-days consumed within the project. Figure 3 shows an example of the tool in use to capture the current state of an existing request for quotation process that takes 51 days to complete and consumes 13 man-days of resource. A future state can then be created to identify what the project plan could look like if it was improved. In this case as the customer (Customer 1 and 2) requirements are for a shorter lead time, the process has been re-configured with increased levels of concurrency so that it can be performed in around half the time. The approach is therefore an effective mapping tool to help frame a whole range of well establish product development approaches from the existing literature. As we will see later, it can also be used to help standardise the complete NPD process.

Improved end-to-end technical process The third and fourth steps in the framework should generally be undertaken concurrently as the technical and people aspects of a successful project need to be applied together. For simplicity, we will describe them in turn. Our framework suggests that the primary tool for improving the end-to-end technical part of the process is quality function deployment (QFD). QFD is a well-established tool for providing excellence in product development (Clausing, 1994). It is particularly good at translating the voice of the customer (which was established in step 1) into the requirements of the product, or the top level house of quality (Figure 5). However, for more complex products it may be fully deployed from product planning through parts deployment, through process planning to production planning. This sequential approach has many benefits of systemic thinking. However, it can be cumbersome for complex projects and can cause problems where there are many products being developed at the same time. As a result an alternate approach that can be considered at this point is SBCE as employed by Toyota (Sobek et al., 1999). The approach helps avoid sequential over-the-wall thinking where individual departments are passed “optimised” designs from previous steps of the process only to find that they require significant modification as they may have optimised previous stages of the design process but are often hard or impossible to use within downstream stages of the process. Consequently, Toyota uses SBCE whereby the different participants in a


Figure 4. An example of a four field map future state

JMTM 17,7

876

Figure 5. An example of a QFD house of quality

process work on rough-cut designs within defined envelopes or sets of opportunities that they are able to work within. Although this approach is very effective for Toyota it does require discipline to use and certainly requires strong project leadership to avoid intra-process conflict (Figure 6).

Towards lean product lifecycle management

Improved end-to-end people process As discussed above, people are usually treated as mere physical assets within most traditional NPD approaches. However, such an often implicit belief generally weakens most projects’ success rate (Belout and Gauvreau, 2004). As a result the fourth part of our framework is the application of knowledge innovation visible planning (KIVP), an approach developed by JMAC (Tanaka, 2002). Within this people-centred approach, the focus on producing innovative products is on the people within the process. To summarise briefly, KIVP starts with the establishment of the existing position from the point of view of the participants (Figure 7). In order to try to create some positive momentum for change, the problems, or vicious circles, that exist are exposed pictorially (Plate 1). In this Volvo example, high workload pressures are seen to lead to a lack of kaizen (continual improvement), which leads to a lack of standardisation which leads to poor planning and consequent work overload. The focus of this first stage is to create a desire to strive for change rather than survive it. After one or more devil’s cycle has been exposed, the physical tasks required within the process are outlined and illustrated visually on a visible planning board (Plate 2). The visible planning board is then used for project planning, monitoring and execution. The tool allows everyone to see what their task is, what everyone else is doing and where the interactions and handovers are. When used with a daily ten-minute review it provides a nexus for motivation, identifies problems and seeks resolution to problems. Further activity can also be used to identify bottlenecks, training needs and areas for managers to work on off-line.

877

Figure 6. Application of set based concurrent engineering

JMTM 17,7

878

Figure 7. The role of KI visible planning

Plate 1. An example of a devil’s cycle

At a more detailed level it can be used for value analysis of individual employee activity and correction of project deflection due to non-planned tasks. In addition, each task can be reviewed to see how valuable it was. Lastly, unscheduled tasks can be analysed to establish why they are occurring and whether they should be resisted or made part of the overall project plan.


Plate 2. An example of KI visible planning

A general weakness we have observed in most companies is their inability to celebrate success when they have made some improvements or finished a successful project. The final element of KIVP that we will highlight here is this celebration of success. In the Volvo case the team have identified that: . their teamwork has moved from islands of excellence to a concerted effort; . how work scheduling has been matched to capacity; . how work is planned according to visual plans, not “who shouts loudest”; and . how the feel for work has moved from “under the thumb” to being given appropriate direction but freedom to act (Plate 3). Develop the single project standard The fifth step in our framework is developing the single project standard. Here we are attempting to move from a single project theoretical-world environment to one that has repetitive cycles of product development, where any innovation in project management can be incorporated in the future template. In terms of product development or PLM it may be possible to categories certain types of products into different types based on their frequency and complexity of occurrence and groups of activity required within the process. In fact, in lean terms we are seeking to define particular product value

JMTM 17,7

880

Plate 3. End of project team feedback at Volvo

streams. Using the runner-repeater-stranger approach (Hines et al., 2004), it might be possible to categorise various types of sub-process, for instance: . major new high innovation projects requiring significant market research and Research and Development time; . mid-level reverse-engineering projects designed to copy market leading products; and . low innovation development, for instance involving product promotions requiring only minor modifications to existing products. In general, when we discuss this type of analysis with companies their usual reaction is that every product is different. However, on further analysis what is often found is that although the products are different, there are often only a few ways of developing them or managing their lifecycle. What frequently occurs in practice is firms either reinvent the process every time, hence loosing learning curve effects, or design every product as if it was a high innovation product and fail to reap the benefit of a simpler process for the majority of their products (Francis, 2002). Thus, the Lean PLM approach defines a few standard PLM sub-processes that can be used as templates for future projects. An example of one such standard is shown in Figure 8 from Toyoda Automatic Loom Works for complex developments of complete forklift trucks. The reader will note that this generic framework does not include the fifth and sixth fields described within step 2, as these are only added for specific projects when the template is applied.


Figure 8. Lifecycle project management at Toyoda Automatic Loom Works

Develop the complete process standard The final step in the framework is again concerned with moving from textbook theory to practical real world solutions. The majority of texts tend to concentrate on how products can be successfully brought to market and fail to address the fact that most firms are developing multiple products at any one time. This is exacerbated in that the technical products development literature is dominated by examples from high innovation, low variety industries such as the automotive sector.

JMTM 17,7

882

Figure 9. Generic product development map

The lean NPD approach attempts to address this in several ways by developing a process framework, not just a project framework. First it adopts the generic product develop mapping approach (Wheelwright and Sasser, 1989) in order that single products are not developed in isolation and are seen as part of a coherent product strategy aligned with internal and external customer requirements (Figure 9). Using this approach, historic and future-oriented plans can be developed for product or brand categories with the type of product categorised according to whether it is a prototype, core product, enhanced or customer product, cost reduced product or hybrid. Over a period, this map can be used to devise and illustrate product strategies for consecutive product generations as shown in the vacuum cleaner example in Figure 10. As can be seen, product strategies are aligned with changing market requirements and the consequent need for changing internal skills and capabilities. The second way the approach moves to a process, not project framework, is formally accepting that organizations work in a multi-project environment and that this adds great complexity as well as opportunities for inter-project sharing and learning. This is an area that is not well developed in the literature. However, there are a few isolated references, most notably by Cusumano and Nobeoka (1998) who suggest that the age of competitive advantage through concurrent engineering is fading to be replaced by competitive advantage through concurrent technology transfer across projects (Figures 11 and 12). Cusumano and Nobeoka (1998), deriving evidence from the automotive sector, show that concurrent technology transfer (i.e. transferring knowledge between projects whilst the projects are still running) is the most effective strategy for developing fast-to market projects with the minimum of engineering design hours and maximum corporate sales growth. They suggest that such inter-project sharing can lead to


Figure 10. Full product development map

Figure 11. Concurrent engineering and technology transfer across projects

considerable advantage by mutual adjusting between projects teams, sharing tasks and sharing resources for larger technical problems or designs. Of particular importance is the sharing of “soft” knowledge, such as how do you get a team to work well together as many design teams made up of technically skilled people often find relationship skills more difficult to learn and apply successfully. This

JMTM 17,7

884

Figure 12. Project strategies and inter-project linkages

Figure 13. Inter project coordination mechanisms

sharing can be established within projects using the KIVP approach as long as time is planned for this multi-project work. Cusumano and Nobeoka (1998) found that the role of General Managers and Project Managers was particularly important in ensuring this occurred effectively (Figure 13).

Conclusion This paper has sought to develop a framework for Lean Product Development. This framework was judged to be required, as existing approaches to lean thinking in the product development area appeared to be partial or incomplete. In addition existing approaches discussed within the technical literature tended to be dominated by either marketing or quality/engineering perspectives. The new framework seeks to be more pluralist in its functional bias. The approach described here is also a tentative step in trying to overcome other weaknesses in the technical literature. Firstly, it is a contingent approach that can be used for both high innovation and low innovation environments and indeed outside of a manufacturing environment with service “products”. Secondly, it takes a more realistic approach as it considers that most firms work within a multi-project environment. Thirdly, it pays specific attention to the human aspects of NPD and PLM. The next steps of our research approach are to test the framework approach in a number of different environments to ensure that it is robust as a framework for the development of competitive advantage. References Barclay, I., Dann, Z. and Holroyd, P. (1992), New Product Development, Butterworth Heinemann, London. Belout, A. and Gauvreau, C. (2004), “Factors influencing project success: the impact of human resource management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, pp. 1-11. Bjorn, J. (2002), “Visible planning: improving white collar productivity with a human approach at Volvo Car Corporation”, JMAC Europe Annual Conference, Milan, 7th November. Booz, Allen and Hamilton (1982), New Product Development for the 1980s, Booz, Allen and Hamilton Inc, New York, NY. Clark, K. and Fujimoto, T. (1991), Product Development Performance: Strategy. Organization and Management in the World Auto Industry, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Clausing, D. (1994), Total Quality Development: A Step-by-Step Guide to World-Class Concurrent Engineering, ASME Press, New York, NY. Cooper, R. (1988), Winning at New Products, Kogan Page, London. Cooper, R. and Kleinschmidt, E. (1993), “Screening new products for potential winners”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 74-81. Crawford, C. (1992), “The hidden costs of accelerated product development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 9, pp. 188-99. Cusumano, M. and Nobeoka, K. (1998), Thinking beyond Lean: How Multi-Project Management is Transforming Product Development at Toyota and Other Companies, The Free Press, New York, NY. Dale, M. (2002), “Issue driven strategy formation”, Journal of Strategic Change, May. Dimancescu, D. (1992), Seamless Enterprise: Making Cross Functional Management Work, Harper Business, New York, NY. Dimancescu, D. and Dwenger, K. (1996), World Class New Product Development: Benchmarking Best Practices of Agile Manufacturers, AMACOM, New York, NY. ESoNET (2004), A Roadmap Towards the Collaborative Enterprise- CE Vision 2010, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.


JMTM 17,7

886

Francis, M. (2002), “Understanding lower innovation product development processes in the UK fast moving consumer goods sector”, PhD thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff. Francis, M. (2005a), “Two genres of product development literature”, working paper, Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff. Francis, M. (2005b), “Product development processes and cycle time performance: the UK fast moving consumer goods industry”, working paper, Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff. Griffin, A. (1997), “PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends and benchmarking best practices”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, pp. 429-58. Hakim, C. (1987), Research Design, Allen Unwin, London. Hartley, J. (1994), “Case studies in organisational research”, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds), Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research, Sage, London. Hill, T. (2000), Manufacturing Strategy, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1997), “The seven value stream mapping tools”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 46-64. Hines, P. and Taylor, D. (2000), Going Lean: A Guide to Implementation, Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff. Hines, P., Esain, A., Francis, M. and Jones, O. (2000), “Managing new product introduction and new product development”, in Hines, P., Lamming, R., Jones, D., Cousins, P. and Rich, N. (Eds), Value Stream Management, FT Prentice Hall, Harlow. Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean thinking”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 994-1011. Hines, P., Rich, N., Bicheno, J., Brunt, D., Taylor, D., Butterworth, C. and Sullivan, J. (1998), “Value stream management”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 25-42. Jones, D. and Womack, J. (2002), Seeing the Whole, Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline. Kamath, R. and Liker, J. (1994), “A second look at Japanese product development”, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 154-70. Liker, J. (2004), Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Mynott, C. (2000), Lean Product Development, Westfield Publishing, Crick. Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1998), Learning to See, Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline. S A Partners (2004), Strategy Formation & Deployment, Unpublished Presentation. Smith, P. and Reinertsen, D. (1998), Developing Products in Half the Time, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Sobek, D., Liker, J. and Ward, A. (1998), “Another look at how Toyota integrates product development”, Harvard Business Review, July/August, pp. 36-49. Sobek, D., Ward, A. and Liker, J. (1999), “Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering”, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 67-83. Stake, R. (1998), “Case studies”, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Stevens, R., Brook, P., Jackson, K. and Arnold, S. (1998), Systems Engineering: Coping with Complexity, Prentice-Hall, London. Tanaka, T. (2002), Efficient Creativity: JIT for Knowledge-Workers, JMAC Consiel SpA, Milan.

Trist, E. and Bamford, K. (1951), “Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall method of goal-setting”, Human Relations, Vol. 4, pp. 3-38. Tsuzuki, K. (1993), “Development of new products and cross-functional management at Toyoda Automatic Loom Works, Ltd”, in Kurogane, K. (Ed.), Cross-Functional Management: Principles and Practical Applications, Asian Productivity Organisation, Tokyo, pp. 71-96. Uchida, T. (1993), “Development of new products at Yukuhashi Plant, Yaskawa Electric Manufacturing Company, Ltd”, in Kurogane, K. (Ed.), Cross-Functional Management: Principles and Practical Applications, Asian Productivity Organisation, Tokyo, pp. 97-131. Ward, A. (2001), “Lean product development”, workshop notes, Airport Marriott Hotel, Toronto. Ward, A., Liker, J., Cristano, J. and Sobek, D. (1995), “Second Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can make better cars faster”, Sloan Management Review, pp. 43-61, Spring. Wheelwright, S. and Clark, K. (1992), Revolutionizing Product Development, The Free Press, New York, NY. Wheelwright, S. and Sasser, E. (1989), “The new product development map”, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 112-25. Winner, R., Pennell, J., Bertrand, H. and Slusarezuk, M. (1988), “The role of concurrent engineering in weapons systems acquisition”, IDA Report R-338, Institute of Defence Analysis, Alexandria, VA. Wolf, R. (1994), “Organizational innovation: review, critique and suggested research directions”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 405-31. Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your Corporation, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Corresponding author Peter Hines can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
