IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v48y2002i7p938-953.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Evaluation of Research on Integrated Product Development

Author

Listed:
  • Donald Gerwin

    (Eric Sprott School of Business and Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada)

  • Nicholas J. Barrowman

    (Thomas C. Chalmers Centre for Systematic Reviews, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, and School of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada)

Abstract

Integrated Product Development (IPD) creates overlap and interaction between activities in the new product development process and, because this increases the need to coordinate, compensates through other aspects of the new product development process (e.g., integrated tools), product definitions (e.g., incremental development), organizational context (e.g., reduced task specialization), and teaming (e.g., cross-functional teams). Since IPD has become an important new standard for managing new product development, this paper's general aim is to evaluate the research that has been conducted on it. Our three specific objectives include first critiquing the IPD literature by identifying problems with empirical research and recommending solutions. There are concerns about the overall approach, conceptualizing and operationalizing IPD characteristics, and selecting performance objectives. Second, we conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate relationships between specific IPD characteristics and project performance. We indicate where relationships do or do not exist and identify variables that may moderate these relationships. Third, we offer suggestions for extending IPD research into studies of (a) the hierarchy of teams working on a project, (b) one company managing a portfolio of projects over time, and (c) two or more firms collaborating in a strategic alliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald Gerwin & Nicholas J. Barrowman, 2002. "An Evaluation of Research on Integrated Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(7), pages 938-953, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:48:y:2002:i:7:p:938-953
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.48.7.938.2818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.7.938.2818
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.48.7.938.2818?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald Gerwin & Linda Moffat, 1997. "Withdrawal of Team Autonomy During Concurrent Engineering," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(9), pages 1275-1287, September.
    2. Liker, Jeffrey K. & Kamath, Rajan R. & Nazli Wasti, S. & Nagamachi, Mitsuo, 1996. "Supplier involvement in automotive component design: are there really large US Japan differences?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 59-89, January.
    3. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    4. Deborah Gladstein Ancona & David F. Caldwell, 1992. "Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 321-341, August.
    5. Christoph H. Loch & Christian Terwiesch, 1998. "Communication and Uncertainty in Concurrent Engineering," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(8), pages 1032-1048, August.
    6. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Christian Terwiesch & Christoph H. Loch, 1999. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Overlapping Development Activities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 455-465, April.
    8. Ken Kusunoki & Ikujiro Nonaka & Akiya Nagata, 1998. "Organizational Capabilities in Product Development of Japanese Firms: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Findings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(6), pages 699-718, December.
    9. Bruce Kogut, 1988. "Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 319-332, July.
    10. Viswanathan Krishnan & Steven D. Eppinger & Daniel E. Whitney, 1997. "A Model-Based Framework to Overlap Product Development Activities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(4), pages 437-451, April.
    11. Iansiti, Marco, 1995. "Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 521-542, July.
    12. Jean‐Francois Hennart, 1988. "A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 361-374, July.
    13. Mary Beth Pinto & Jeffrey K. Pinto & John E. Prescott, 1993. "Antecedents and Consequences of Project Team Cross-Functional Cooperation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1281-1297, October.
    14. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1992. "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 398-427, August.
    15. Karl Ulrich & David Sartorius & Scott Pearson & Mark Jakiela, 1993. "Including the Value of Time in Design-for-Manufacturing Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(4), pages 429-447, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Annika Lorenz & Michael Raven & Knut Blind, 2019. "The role of standardization at the interface of product and process development in biotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1097-1133, August.
    3. Christian Terwiesch & Christoph H. Loch & Arnoud De Meyer, 2002. "Exchanging Preliminary Information in Concurrent Engineering: Alternative Coordination Strategies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 402-419, August.
    4. Nitindra R. Joglekar & Ali A. Yassine & Steven D. Eppinger & Daniel E. Whitney, 2001. "Performance of Coupled Product Development Activities with a Deadline," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1605-1620, December.
    5. Thomas A. Roemer & Reza Ahmadi, 2004. "Concurrent Crashing and Overlapping in Product Development," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 606-622, August.
    6. Victoria L. Mitchell & Barrie R. Nault, 2007. "Cooperative Planning, Uncertainty, and Managerial Control in Concurrent Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 375-389, March.
    7. Nadia Bhuiyan & Donald Gerwin & Vince Thomson, 2004. "Simulation of the New Product Development Process for Performance Improvement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1690-1703, December.
    8. Paulo J. Gomes & Nitin R. Joglekar, 2008. "Linking modularity with problem solving and coordination efforts," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(5), pages 443-457.
    9. Lin, Jun & Chai, Kah Hin & Brombacher, Aarnout C. & Wong, Yoke San, 2009. "Optimal overlapping and functional interaction in product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 1158-1169, August.
    10. Valle, Sandra & Vázquez-Bustelo, Daniel, 2009. "Concurrent engineering performance: Incremental versus radical innovation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 136-148, May.
    11. Joglekar, Nitindra R., 2003. "Performance of coupled product development activities with a deadline," Working papers WP 4122-00., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    12. Gülru F. Özkan-Seely & Cheryl Gaimon & Stylianos Kavadias, 2015. "Dynamic Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Development for Product and Process Design Teams," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 177-190, May.
    13. Indranil R. Bardhan & Vish V. Krishnan & Shu Lin, 2007. "Project Performance and the Enabling Role of Information Technology: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Alignment," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 579-595, May.
    14. Sosa, Manuel E., 2003. "Factors that influence technical communication in distributed product development : an empirical study in the telecommunications industry," Working papers WP 4123-00., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    15. Pankaj Setia & Balaji Rajagopalan & Vallabh Sambamurthy & Roger Calantone, 2012. "How Peripheral Developers Contribute to Open-Source Software Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 144-163, March.
    16. Akhilesh Bajaj & Sunder Kekre & Kannan Srinivasan, 2004. "Managing NPD: Cost and Schedule Performance in Design and Manufacturing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(4), pages 527-536, April.
    17. Rauniar, Rupak & Rawski, Greg, 2012. "Organizational structuring and project team structuring in integrated product development project," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(2), pages 939-952.
    18. Glen M. Schmidt & Evan L. Porteus, 2000. "Sustaining Technology Leadership Can Require Both Cost Competence and Innovative Competence," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Im, Subin & Nakata, Cheryl, 2008. "Crafting an environment to foster integration in new product teams," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 164-172.
    20. Pier Vittorio Mannucci, 2017. "Drawing Snow White and Animating Buzz Lightyear: Technological Toolkit Characteristics and Creativity in Cross-Disciplinary Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 711-728, August.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:48:y:2002:i:7:p:938-953. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.