An Evaluation of Research on Integrated Product Development
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.
Volume (Year): 48 (2002)
Issue (Month): 7 (July)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA|
Web page: http://www.informs.org/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Christoph H. Loch & Christian Terwiesch, 1998. "Communication and Uncertainty in Concurrent Engineering," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(8), pages 1032-1048, August.
- Christian Terwiesch & Christoph H. Loch, 1999. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Overlapping Development Activities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 455-465, April.
- Donald Gerwin & Linda Moffat, 1997. "Withdrawal of Team Autonomy During Concurrent Engineering," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(9), pages 1275-1287, September.
- 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.
- Iansiti, Marco, 1995. "Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 521-542, July.
- V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.