Product Platform Development Process and Projects

The work of research and development can be seen as a process, i.e. a workflow that transforms inputs (e.g. materials, people, energy, etc.) into outputs (products and services) to achieve a desired result (Evans and Lindsay, 2002). The process approach in new product development has been proved to improve the success of the resulting product (Cooper, 1987). Barclay (1992) stresses that product development processes are complex and iterative, and thus difficult to describe. Several models try to describe series of events, activities, decisions, or departmental stages. The processes differ mostly in what is included in the description. Generic product development models have been introduced for example by Urban and Hauser (1980), Jaakkola and Tunkelo (1987), Dwyer and Mellon (1991), Porter et al. (1991), Davenport (1993), Rothwell (1994), Heinonen (1994), and Ulrich and Eppinger (2000). As to the software development, there are specific process models starting from code and fix model, waterfall and spiral models to Software Capability Maturity Model (i.e. CMM) and unified software development process (Boehm, 1988, Royce, 1998, Humphrey, 1990, Jacobson et al., 1999, Royce, 1998, Kruchten, 2000). Barclay (1992) states, though, that there is no model available that can adequately describe the whole process of parallel events in product development.

The product platform development can be done concurrently for three different product platforms (Figure 6): derivative products developed from the initial product platform, improvements introduced to the existing product platform (product platform extensions), and the totally new product platform(s) (product platform renewals) developed (Meyer and Lehnerd, 1997a, Meyer et al., 1997b). Hence, the product platform development might require multi-project environment and management from the product development processes.

Figure 6. Product platform generations (Meyer et al., 1997b).

Time

Development of Original Platform Architecture Initial Product

Follow-on Product 1 Follow-on Product 2

Follow-on Product 3

Development of a New Version of the Platform Initial Product

Follow-on Product 1 Follow-on Product 2

Follow-on Product 3 Follow-on Product 4

Follow-on Product 5

New Platform Architecture

Initial Product

Follow-on Product 1 Etc … Plan

Multiple Generations

Cost Reduction & New Features

New Market Applications

New Design to Achieve Value Cost Leadership and Reach New Market Applications

Product Platform Generations

The actual implementation of a new product development (process) is often done in projects (Stenlund, 1986, Jaakkola and Tunkelo, 1987, Pelin 1999, Välimaa, 1994, Ulrich and Eppinger, 2000), with specific schedules, phases, resources, and objectives.

There are several success factors identified to the product development projects, from the role of project management to planning and control, steering and risk management, transparency of projects, communication internally and to the interest groups (Jaakkola and Tunkelo, 1987, Pelin, 1999, Rothwell, 1992, Boehm and Ross 1989, Roussel et al., 1991, Boehm, 1991, Välimaa et al., 1994, Verner, 1999). Yet another significant success factor for product development projects are the customer needs, their proper assessment and transformation to the product specifications (e.g. Calantone and Cooper, 1981, Soin, 1993, Välimaa et al., 1994, Cooper, 1993 Cooper, 1995, Cooper, 2000, Evans and Lindsay, 2002, Kärkkäinen, 2002, Deutch, 1991, Sawhney, 2002, Rothwell, 1994, Verner, 1999). The customer needs assessment often fails (Kärkkäinen et al., 2001, Koivuniemi et al., 2002, Kärkkäinen and Elfvengren, 2002) and leads to changes during the project (Koivuniemi et al., 2002). On the other hand, a research conducted by Veryzer (1998b) showed that most of the notable product development ideas of discontinuous products came from inside the company – not form the customers.

Typical aspect of the product platform development is the long time-horizon; the product platform development requires time and patience. Significant time and resource investment decisions are made already in the product platform definition phase – in the beginning of product development (Krishnan et al., 1999). Meyer and Zack (1996) suggest that developing a product platform might take from 3 to 5 years, while the derivative products are developed from 3 months to 1 year’s time. The new product platform development needs to be started concurrently with the development of derivative products on the previous product platform (Meyer and Utterback, 1993). The development of a new product platform requires more patience than the development of new versions of an existing product platform, because there are higher technological and market uncertainties involved (Meyer and Lehnerd, 1997a). The incremental innovations to the existing product platform might be less time-consuming and less risky, but time-to-time it is necessary to rethink the product platform. The long-time

horizon stresses the importance of perceived and latent, simple and complex customer needs identification (Meyer and Lehnerd, 1997a, Meyer and Seliger, 1998). Since the product platforms are used as basis of several derivative products, product platform development needs to balance among varying business and technical needs. Hence, it is not surprising that the successful product platform development companies have excelled in collecting and utilizing good market information. This has been done by discussing with the customers (existing, potential new and former), sharing information about technologies and technical trends, and discussing with the sales channel participants (Tabrizi and Walleigh, 1997).

According to a study conducted by Tatikonda (1999), the product platform projects did not differ from the derivative product development projects in project planning and execution approaches, nor in the smoothness of project execution or project success.

There were four factors identified, though, which increased the success of the product platform development; 1) reduced interdependence between the product’s technological elements, 2) products new to the customers and markets, 3) contingency planning and project management involvement in setting the objectives, and 4) project-based evaluation of personnel and increased overlap between the design and manufacturing.

The first two factors were specific to the product platform development, while the latter two factors increased the success of the derivative product development as well.

A study by Tabrizi and Walleigh (1997) done to 28 product platform development companies, on the other hand, revealed that there were severe problems in completing the product platform projects in schedule, and in developing the derivative products (product family). The problems originated mainly from the product definition phase.

The successful companies, on the other hand, had learned to manage the technological and market uncertainties with their product strategies, project organizations and execution during definition phase. During the product definition phase, the successful companies tracked the progress of definition work, created early prototypes, and used development partners (Tabrizi and Walleigh, 1997). Without comparison to the

derivative product development, it is impossible to say whether the schedule problems were specific to the product platform development or not.

A survey done in automobile industry on design transfer of vehicle product platforms between projects (Nobeoka and Cusumano, 1995) revealed that the rapid design transfer (product platform and derivative projects run concurrently) was the most efficient when measured by the engineering hours. The reason was that the new derivative project usually needed to modify the product platform, and in the concurrent mode, the modification needs could be planned in advance and the product platform could be designed to enable the modifications. It was possible to design together, share tasks and do adjustments to the product platform during the design phase. There also was a possibility to face-to-face contact, and communication between project managers. The rapid transfer management was complicated, though, for the interdependencies between the projects and hence, requires active multi-project coordination. Good communication was needed, as well as co-ordination in design and schedule.

Hence, the literature has included some aspects of the projects and process in connection with product platforms. The product platform development might require a multi-project environment to be implemented. Further, when developing a new product platform to be used years ahead, the real customer needs might not yet be seen. Ability to see the latent customer needs might determine who wins the race for the dominant design and thus the race for market share. Again, the product lines and the external customers should be very interested about the product platform fulfilling the external customer needs. Defining the customer needs and participating to the product definition (architecture and feature specification) at an early phases of the product development process improve the their ability to influence the contents of the final product platform.

The customer need definition links closely to designing product new to the customers and markets. During the product definition phase, it is possible to reduce the amount of interdependencies between the technical elements in a product platform, also. During the product platform development, the concurrent derivative product development

projects require constant communication, in order to gain efficiency in the product platform development.