IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bushor/v53yi4p359-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of performance in a product development context

Author

Listed:
  • Cedergren, Stefan
  • Wall, Anders
  • Norström, Christer

Abstract

In today's competitive environment, the need is greater than ever to deploy product development investments more effectively. To assist managers, we have developed two conceptual tools to support the evaluation of performance in product development. The Performance Measurement Evaluation Matrix (PMEX) helps managers evaluate performance measurement systems they currently use, in order to identify areas requiring improvement. Results from using the PMEX indicate that it is common to associate performance measurements with the efficiency aspects of time, cost, and quality, without monitoring the value created. Performance is largely perceived by managers in terms of time, cost, and quality of the activities in the later phases of the development process. We contend that an effective performance measurement system is based on performance criteria, and then derives measurements based on these. It is argued that there should be a change in the perception of performance, before performance evaluation systems can be improved. The Product Development Organizational Performance Model (PDOPM) assists in developing the perception of performance by relating uncertainty, efficiency, and effectiveness at three generic activity levels within the product development function. The use of our tools provides an improved perception of performance and its measurement, thus enabling improvements to the evaluation of performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Cedergren, Stefan & Wall, Anders & Norström, Christer, 2010. "Evaluation of performance in a product development context," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 359-369, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:53:y::i:4:p:359-369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007-6813(10)00035-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cooper, Robert G., 1990. "Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 44-54.
    2. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Hauser, John & Katz, Gerald, 1998. "Metrics: you are what you measure!," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 517-528, October.
    4. Hauser, John R. & Katz, Gerald M. & International Center for Research on the Management of Technology., 1998. "Metrics : you are what you measure!," Working papers 172-98, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vaida Zemlickienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "Performance Measurement in R&D Projects: Relevance of Indicators Based on US and German Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. VAN CAMP, Jelle & BRAET, Johan, 2013. "Proposing a taxonomy for performance measurement systems' failures," Working Papers 2013004, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jan Mattsson & Helge Helmersson & Katarina Stetler, 2016. "Motivation Fatigue As A Threat To Innovation: Bypassing The Productivity Dilemma In R&D By Cyclic Production," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-23, February.
    2. VAN CAMP, Jelle & BRAET, Johan, 2013. "Proposing a taxonomy for performance measurement systems' failures," Working Papers 2013004, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    3. Moses Nyakuwanika & Huibrecht Margaretha van der Poll & John Andrew van der Poll, 2021. "A Conceptual Framework for Greener Goldmining through Environmental Management Accounting Practices (EMAPs): The Case of Zimbabwe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-26, September.
    4. Bookhagen, Andrea & Sperber, Sonja, 2017. "Kundenintegration in den Entwicklungsprozess von Produktinnovationen durch Crowdsourcing," PraxisWISSEN Marketing: German Journal of Marketing, AfM – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Marketing, vol. 2(01/2017), pages 21-37.
    5. Brooks, Mary R., 2006. "Chapter 25 Issues in Measuring Port Devolution Program Performance: A Managerial Perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 599-629, January.
    6. Ghezzi, Antonio & Cavallo, Angelo, 2020. "Agile Business Model Innovation in Digital Entrepreneurship: Lean Startup Approaches," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 519-537.
    7. Van Horne, Constance & Frayret, Jean-Marc & Poulin, Diane, 2006. "Creating value with innovation: From centre of expertise to the forest products industry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(7), pages 751-761, October.
    8. Henner Gimpel & Dominikus Kleindienst & Daniela Waldmann, 2018. "The disclosure of private data: measuring the privacy paradox in digital services," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 28(4), pages 475-490, November.
    9. Berg, Pekka & Leinonen, Mikko & Leivo, Virpi & Pihlajamaa, Jussi, 2002. "Assessment of quality and maturity level of R&D," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 29-35, July.
    10. Neil A. Morgan & Lopo Leotte Rego, 2006. "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Business Performance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 426-439, September.
    11. Alina Almã?an & Cristina Circa & Mãdãlina Dumitru & Raluca Gina Gu?e & Drago? Marian Mangiuc, 2019. "Effects of Integrated Reporting on Corporate Disclosure Practices regarding the Capitals and Performance," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(52), pages 572-572, August.
    12. Onesun Steve Yoo & Tingliang Huang & Kenan Arifoğlu, 2021. "A Theoretical Analysis of the Lean Start-up Method," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 395-412, May.
    13. Bjorn De Koeijer & Jos De Lange & Renee Wever, 2017. "Desired, Perceived, and Achieved Sustainability: Trade-Offs in Strategic and Operational Packaging Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-29, October.
    14. Kaveh Asiaei & Nick Bontis & Omid Barani & Ruzita Jusoh, 2021. "Corporate social responsibility and sustainability performance measurement systems: implications for organizational performance," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 85-126, March.
    15. Dziallas, Marisa, 2020. "How to evaluate innovative ideas and concepts at the front-end?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 502-518.
    16. Giorgia Nigri & Mara Del Baldo, 2018. "Sustainability Reporting and Performance Measurement Systems: How do Small- and Medium-Sized Benefit Corporations Manage Integration?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, November.
    17. Liew, Angela, 2015. "The use of technology-structured management controls: changes in senior management’s decision-making behaviours," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 37-64.
    18. Attilio Bruni, 2013. "Le metriche di marketing nel turismo. un?indagine esplorativa sui comportamenti manageriali delle imprese turistiche profit oriented," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(2), pages 105-129.
    19. Bielecki, Andre & Albers, Sönke & Mantrala, Murali, 2012. "Salesperson Efficiency Benchmarking Using Sales Response Data: Who is Working Hard and Working Smart?," EconStor Preprints 57427, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    20. Manuel E. Sosa & Steven D. Eppinger & Craig M. Rowles, 2004. "The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1674-1689, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:53:y::i:4:p:359-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.