IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v43y1997i4p465-478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Time Versus Market Orientation in Product Concept Development: Empirically-Based Theory Generation

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Burchill

    (Navy Ships Parts Control Center, United States Navy, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055-0788)

  • Charles H. Fine

    (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

Abstract

In collaboration with industry partners, a normative model of the product concept decision process was developed, supported with tools and techniques, and codified as a decision support process for product development teams. This process (Concept Engineering) was then introduced into a number of product development teams in different companies. A comparative analysis of actual product concept development activities, with and without the use of Concept Engineering, was conducted. All of the observed teams viewed time to market as a critical measure of their success. However, the development processes differed significantly depending on whether relatively more emphasis was placed on time or market considerations. Key variables associated with the product concept development decision process and time-to-market dynamics were identified and a theory of the concept development process was developed using the inductive system diagram technique, a research methodology developed in the course of this work. We believe this work contributes to the operations management literature in three ways. First, it introduces a very detailed, structured decision process for product concept development, enhancing the literature on Quality Function Deployment (QFD). Second, it presents a theory of product concept development that can improve understanding of success and failure in product concept development. Third, this work develops new methodology (Inductive Systems Diagrams) for field work in operations management. This methodology marries the grounded theory methods familiar to sociologists with causal-loop modeling familiar to systems dynamicists, yielding a rigorous tool for systematically collecting, organizing, and distilling large amounts of field-based data.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary Burchill & Charles H. Fine, 1997. "Time Versus Market Orientation in Product Concept Development: Empirically-Based Theory Generation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(4), pages 465-478, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:43:y:1997:i:4:p:465-478
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.43.4.465
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.4.465
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.43.4.465?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    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. Andrada Tomoaia‐Cotisel & Samuel D. Allen & Hyunjung Kim & David Andersen & Zaid Chalabi, 2022. "Rigorously interpreted quotation analysis for evaluating causal loop diagrams in late‐stage conceptualization," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(1), pages 41-80, January.
    3. Chan, Lai-Kow & Wu, Ming-Lu, 2002. "Quality function deployment: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 463-497, December.
    4. Scott A. Shane & Karl T. Ulrich, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Technological Innovation, Product Development, and Entrepreneurship in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 133-144, February.
    5. Kok, Robert A.W. & Hillebrand, Bas & Biemans, Wim G., 2002. "Market-oriented product development as an organizational learning capability: findings from two cases," Research Report 02B13, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    6. Kwon, Yung-Chul & Hu, Michael Y., 2000. "Market orientation among small Korean exporters," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 61-75, February.
    7. Marshall Fisher, 2007. "Strengthening the Empirical Base of Operations Management," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 368-382, December.
    8. Pagani, Margherita & Fine, Charles H., 2008. "Value network dynamics in 3G-4G wireless communications: A systems thinking approach to strategic value assessment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 1102-1112, November.
    9. repec:dgr:rugsom:02b13 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2013. "The uses of qualitative data in multimethodology: Developing causal loop diagrams during the coding process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 151-161.
    11. Ford, David N. & Sterman, John., 1997. "Expert knowledge elicitation to improve mental and formal models," Working papers WP 3953-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    12. Edward G. Anderson & David R. Keith & Jose Lopez, 2023. "Opportunities for system dynamics research in operations management for public policy," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1895-1920, June.
    13. Federico Cosenz & Guido Noto, 2016. "Applying System Dynamics Modelling to Strategic Management: A Literature Review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 703-741, November.
    14. Vincent de Gooyert, 2019. "Developing dynamic organizational theories; three system dynamics based research strategies," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 653-666, March.

    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:43:y:1997:i:4:p:465-478. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.