IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v52y2006i6p813-825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing a Family of Development-Intensive Products

Author

Listed:
  • V. Krishnan

    (Rady School of Management, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093-0093)

  • W. Zhu

    (Sorrell College of Business, Troy University, 207 Bib Graves Hall, Troy, Alabama 36082)

Abstract

Faced with fragmented markets, saturated and demanding customers, and global competition, firms increasingly must design and offer a line of innovative, quality-differentiated products to target customers with differing willingness to pay (WTP). In this context, designing a special class of products that we term development-intensive products (DIPs)--for which the fixed costs of development far outweigh the unit-variable costs--presents some unique managerial challenges. Examples of such development-intensive offerings abound in a number of industries, including the pharmaceutical, information, and entertainment sectors of the economy. Our contributions in this paper are threefold: (a) to show that managerial insights from the traditional approach to product-line design developed for unit-variable cost-intensive products do not carry over to DIPs, (b) to present new mechanisms and managerial guidelines for designing a family of products for which development costs cannot be ignored, and (c) to illustrate the insights with an extended industry example. We find that the design approach based on degrading (or subtracting value from) a high-end product to obtain a subsumed low-end edition, shown in the literature to be an effective approach for designing unit cost-intensive products, can be inappropriate for DIPs. This limitation of value subtraction has implications for the number of variants and the sequence in which they are developed. As an alternative to a subsumed product-design strategy, we propose and examine the overlapped product-design approach, in which a low-end product is not completely subsumed within its high-end counterpart, but differentiated on additional vertical quality dimensions. Our results both explain the recent challenges of firms with subsumed low-end products and guide them in designing a product line to successfully address emerging low-end market segments.

Suggested Citation

  • V. Krishnan & W. Zhu, 2006. "Designing a Family of Development-Intensive Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(6), pages 813-825, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:52:y:2006:i:6:p:813-825
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0492
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0492?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. V. Krishnan & Saurabh Gupta, 2001. "Appropriateness and Impact of Platform-Based Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 52-68, January.
    2. Motta, Massimo, 1993. "Endogenous Quality Choice: Price vs. Quantity Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 113-131, June.
    3. Chialin Chen, 2001. "Design for the Environment: A Quality-Based Model for Green Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 250-263, February.
    4. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    5. Marshall Fisher & Kamalini Ramdas & Karl Ulrich, 1999. "Component Sharing in the Management of Product Variety: A Study of Automotive Braking Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 297-315, March.
    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. Preyas Desai & Sunder Kekre & Suresh Radhakrishnan & Kannan Srinivasan, 2001. "Product Differentiation and Commonality in Design: Balancing Revenue and Cost Drivers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 37-51, January.
    8. Raymond J. Deneckere & R. Preston McAfee, 1996. "Damaged Goods," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 149-174, June.
    9. K. Sridhar Moorthy & I. P. L. Png, 1992. "Market Segmentation, Cannibalization, and the Timing of Product Introductions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 345-359, March.
    10. Varian, Hal R, 1993. "Economic Incentives in Software Design," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 6(3-4), pages 201-217, November.
    11. Kilsun Kim & Dilip Chhajed, 2002. "Product Design with Multiple Quality-Type Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(11), pages 1502-1511, November.
    12. K. Sridhar Moorthy, 1984. "Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 288-307.
    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. Jonnalagedda, Sreelata & Saranga, Haritha, 2017. "Commonality decisions when designing for multiple markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 902-911.
    2. Palsule-Desai, Omkar D. & Tirupati, Devanath & Shah, Janat, 2015. "Product line design and positioning using add-on services," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 16-33.
    3. Zhang, Yibin & Hafezi, Maryam & Zhao, Xuan & Shi, Victor, 2017. "Reprint of “The impact of development cost on product line design and its environmental performance”," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 126-134.
    4. Wong, Hartanto & Lesmono, Dharma & Chhajed, Dilip & Kim, Kilsun, 2019. "On the evaluation of commonality strategy in product line design: The effect of valuation change and distribution channel structure," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 14-25.
    5. 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.
    6. Zhang, Yibin & Hafezi, Maryam & Zhao, Xuan & Shi, Victor, 2017. "The impact of development cost on product line design and its environmental performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 122-130.
    7. José A. Novo‐Peteiro, 2023. "Product design with attribute dependence," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 91(4), pages 361-385, July.
    8. Chen, Chialin & Liu, Lucy Qian, 2014. "Pricing and quality decisions and financial incentives for sustainable product design with recycled material content under price leadership," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PC), pages 666-677.
    9. Fei Gao & Shiliang Cui & Morris Cohen, 2021. "Performance, Reliability, or Time‐to‐Market? Innovative Product Development and the Impact of Government Regulation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(1), pages 253-275, January.
    10. Qian, Li, 2011. "Product price and performance level in one market or two separated markets under various cost structures and functions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 505-518, June.
    11. Hans Sebastian Heese & Jayashankar M. Swaminathan, 2006. "Product Line Design with Component Commonality and Cost-Reduction Effort," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 206-219, May.
    12. Arda Yenipazarli & Asoo J. Vakharia, 2017. "Green, greener or brown: choosing the right color of the product," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 250(2), pages 537-567, March.
    13. Kilsun Kim & Dilip Chhajed & Yunchuan Liu, 2013. "Can Commonality Relieve Cannibalization in Product Line Design?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 510-521, May.
    14. Wong, Hartanto & Kim, Kilsun & Chhajed, Dilip, 2021. "Reducing channel inefficiency in product line design," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    15. Zhu, Wenge & He, Yuanjie, 2017. "Green product design in supply chains under competition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 165-180.
    16. Lacourbe, Paul, 2012. "A model of product line design and introduction sequence with reservation utility," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 338-348.
    17. Yenipazarli, A. & Vakharia, A., 2015. "Pricing, market coverage and capacity: Can green and brown products co-exist?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 304-315.
    18. Wallace J. Hopp & Xiaowei Xu, 2005. "Product Line Selection and Pricing with Modularity in Design," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 172-187, August.
    19. Kai-Lung Hui, 2004. "Product Variety Under Brand Influence: An Empirical Investigation of Personal Computer Demand," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 686-700, May.
    20. Joan Calzada & Tommaso M. Valletti, 2012. "Intertemporal Movie Distribution: Versioning When Customers Can Buy Both Versions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 649-667, July.

    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:52:y:2006:i:6:p:813-825. 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.