• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.43-65
• /
• 2005

In most leading companies, new product development is one of the most important corporate activities which affects the very existence of them. Therefore, CFT(cross-functional team) is frequently used to utilize knowledge and experiences of its members from various teams. To ensure the successful operation of CFT, various structural assistances, such as committee and Task Force Team, are made which will coordinate smooth interactions among members. Many researches show that the increase of interaction among team members affects the performance. This research is exploratory research intend to show the effects of relational characteristics such as group efficacy and participation on the perceived performance of new product development. This research examines the performance mechanism that lies in between CFT and its members by expanding the understandings on the relationship between interaction and performance in new product development CFT. Results show that the level of interaction affect group efficacy. and group efficacy affect participation. Finally, participation affect perceived performance. However. it shows that the level of interaction and group efficacy do not have direct effect on perceived performance.

• Archives of design research
• /
• v.18 no.4 s.62
• /
• pp.95-104
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study is to estimate the determinants of product design and analyze the impacts of product design on quality competitiveness, product reliability, and consumer satisfaction in an attempt to provide a foundation for the theory of design management. For this empirical analysis, this study has derived the relevant measurement variables from a survey on 400 Korean manufacturing firms during the period of $August{\sim}October$ 2003. The empirical findings are summarized as follows: First, the determinants of product design are very significantly (at p<0.001) estimated to be the R&D capability, the level of R&D expenditure, the level of innovative activities(5S, TQM, 6Sigma, QC, etc.). This empirical result can support Pawar and Driva(1999)'s two principles by which the performance of product design and product development can be simultaneously evaluated in the context of CE(concurrent engineering) of NPD(newly product development) activities. Second, the hypothesis on the causality: product design${\rightarrow}$quality competitiveness${\rightarrow}$customer satisfaction${\rightarrow}$customer loyalty is very significantly (at p<0.001) accepted. This implies that product design positively affects consumer satisfaction, not directly but indirectly, by influencing quality competitiveness. This empirical result of this study can also support the studies of for example Flynn et al.(1994), Ahire et at.(1996), Afire and Dreyfus(2000) which conclude that design management is a significant determinant of product quality. The aforementioned empirical results are important in the following sense: the empirical result that quality competitiveness plays a bridging role between product design and consumer satisfaction can reconcile the traditional debate between QFD(quality function development) approach asserted by product developers and conjoint analysis maintained by marketers. The first empirical result is related to QFD approach whereas the second empirical result is related to conjoint analysis. At the same time, the empirical results of this study can support the rationale of design integration(DI) of Ettlie(1997), i.e., the coordination of the timing and substance of product development activities performed by the various disciplines and organizational functions of a product's life cycle. Finally, the policy implication (at the corporate level) from the empirical results is that successful design management(DM) requires not only the support of top management but also the removal of communication barriers, (i.e. the adoption of cross-functional teams) so that concurrent engineering(CE), the simultaneous development of product and process designs can assure product development speed, design quality, and market success.

• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.53-76
• /
• 2005

With rapid technological and market change, new product development (NPD) complexity is a significant issue that organizations continually face in their development projects. There are numerous factors, which cause development projects to become increasingly costly & complex. A product is more likely to be successfully developed and marketed when the complexity inherent in NPD projects is clearly understood and carefully managed. Based upon the previous studies, this study examines the nature and importance of complexity in developing new products and then identifies several issues in managing complexity. Issues considered include: definition of complexity : consequences of complexity; and methods for managing complexity in NPD projects. To achieve high performance in managing complexity in development projects, these issues need to be addressed, for example: A. Complexity inherent in NPD projects is multi-faceted and multidimensional. What factors need to be considered in defining and/or measuring complexity in a development project? For example, is it sufficient if complexity is defined only from a technological perspective, or is it more desirable to consider the entire array of complexity sources which NPD teams with different functions (e.g., marketing, R&D, manufacturing, etc.) face in the development process? Moreover, is it sufficient if complexity is measured only once during a development project, or is it more effective and useful to trace complexity changes over the entire development life cycle? B. Complexity inherent in a project can have negative as well as positive influences on NPD performance. Thus, which complexity impacts are usually considered negative and which are positive? Project complexity also can affect the entire organization. Any complexity could be better assessed in broader and longer perspective. What are some ways in which the long-term impact of complexity on an organization can be assessed and managed? C. Based upon previous studies, several approaches for managing complexity are derived. What are the weaknesses & strengths of each approach? Is there a desirable hierarchy or order among these approaches when more than one approach is used? Are there differences in the outcomes according to industry and product types (incremental or radical)? Answers to these and other questions can help organizations effectively manage the complexity inherent in most development projects. Complexity is worthy of additional attention from researchers and practitioners alike. Large-scale empirical investigations, jointly conducted by researchers and practitioners, will help gain useful insights into understanding and managing complexity. Those organizations that can accurately identify, assess, and manage the complexity inherent in projects are likely to gain important competitive advantages.