Optimal economic result and risk of parallel development of concept options in dynamic markets Outros Idiomas

ID:
42620
Resumo:
New product development is an essential competence to organizations. Launching success products requires elaborate and precise knowledge about the technological platforms, like the most important market needs and characteristics, and the project team have to employ information systems to support the project decisions, which must be rapid and accurate. However, when the market characteristics are much dynamic and change rapidly or the development project aims at a really new product, the levels of uncertainties are greater, and the project team must employ more robust strategies of risk management. Option thinking is useful to develop several concept alternatives of some crucial subsystems of the new product in order to achieve new technical and market knowledge by repeating cycles of design, built and tested by several and different prototypes in parallel. These different prototypes develop, test and can accumulate knowledge about each one, different technologies, architectures and quality attributes or the usability for potential customers. This study achieves the optimal number of concept options to develop in parallel in order to maximize the economic performance of the development project of a new product constituted of two important subsystems. Mathematical models simulating the sequential decision process are developed to determine the economic result and risk of a two-subsystem product innovation project. Our results point the parallel development of concept options as a robust strategy to manage new product development mostly in adverse conditions, that is, with greater levels of uncertainties.
Citação ABNT:
CAMARGO JÚNIOR, A. S.; UJKL, 0. Optimal economic result and risk of parallel development of concept options in dynamic markets. Revista de Administração e Inovação, v. 13, n. 3, p. 190-198, 2016.
Citação APA:
Camargo Júnior, A. S., & Ujkl, 0. (2016). Optimal economic result and risk of parallel development of concept options in dynamic markets. Revista de Administração e Inovação, 13(3), 190-198.
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2016.06.006
Link Permanente:
http://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/42620/optimal-economic-result-and-risk-of-parallel-development-of-concept-options-in-dynamic-markets/i/pt-br
Tipo de documento:
Artigo
Idioma:
Inglês
Referências:
Abell, D. F. (1978). Strategic windows - The time to invest in a product or market when a strategic window is open. Journal of Marketing, 42(3), 21-26.

Adner, R.; Levinthal, D. A. (2004). Real options and real tradeoffs. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 120-126.

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Thomson Publishing.

Bacon, G.; Beckman, S. L.; Mowery, D. C.; Wilson, E. (1994). Managing product definition in high technology industries: A pilot study. California Management Review, 36(Spring), 32-56.

Baldwin, C. Y.; Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Barnett, M. L. (2008). An attention-based view of real options reasoning. The Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 606-628.

Bolwijn, P. T.; Kumpe, T. (1990). Manufacturing in the 1990s - Productivity, flexibility and innovation. Lang Range Planning, 23(4), 44-57.

Bowman, E.; Hurry, D. (1993). Strategy through the option lens: An integrated view of resource investments and the incremental-choice process. The Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 760-782.

Brown, S. L.; Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research,present findings, and future directions. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343-378.

Christensen, C. M.; Suárez, F. F.; Utterback, J. M. (1998). Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries. Management Science, 44(12), S207-S220.

Clark, K. B.; Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance. HBS Press.

Clark, K. B.; Wheelwright, S. C. (1993). Revolutionizing product development. New York: The Free Press.

Cooper, R. G.; Kleinschimdt, E. J. (1987). New products: What separates winners from losers? The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(3), 169-184.

Cooper, R. G.; Kleinschimdt, E. J. (1994). Determinants of timeliness in product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(5), 381-396.

Dane, F. C. (1990). Research methods. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Davis, J. P.; Eisenhardt, K. M.; Bingham, C. B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 480-499.

Dixit, A. K.; Pindyck, R. S. (1994). Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press.

Ettlie, J. E.; Stoll, H. W. (1990). Managing the design-manufacturing process. McGraw-Hill Inc.

Faulkner, T. W. (1996). Applying ‘options thinking’ to R and D valuation. Research and Technology Management, 39(3), 50-56.

Gupta, A. K.; Raj, S. P.; Wilemon, D. (1986). A model for studying R&Dmarketing interface in the product innovation process. Journal of Marketing, 50(April), 7-17.

Huchzermeier, A.; Loch, C. H. (2001). Project management under risk: Using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Management Science, 47(1), 85-101.

Kessler, E. H.; Chakrabarti, A. K. (1996). Innovation speed: A conceptual model of context, antecedents and outcomes. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 11431194.

Kogut, B.; Kulatilaka, N. (2004). Real options pricing and organizations: The contingent risks of extended theoretical domains. The Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 102-110.

Lawrence, P. R.; Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Organization and environment: managing differentiation and integration. Homewood, III: R. D. Irwin.

Liker, J. K.; Collins, P. D.; Hull, F. M. (1999). Flexibility and standardization: Test of a contingency model of product design-manufacturing integration. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(3), 248-267.

MacMillan, I. C.; Putten, A. B. V.; McGrath, R. G.; Thompson, J. D. (2006). Using real options discipline for highly uncertain technology investments. Research Technology Management, 49(1), 29-38.

McGrath, R. G. (1997). A real options logic for initiating technology positioning investments. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 974-996.

McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 13-30.

McGrath, R. G.; Ferrier, W. J.; Mendelow, A. L. (2004). Real options as engines of choice and heterogeneity. The Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 86-101.

Meyer, M. H.; Utterback, J. M. (1993). The product family and the dynamics of core capability. Sloan Management Review, 34(3), 29-47.

Morris, P. A.; Teisberg, E. O.; Kolbe, A. L. (1991). When choosing R&D projects, go with long shots. Research Technology Management, 34(1), 35-40.

Shenhar, A. J. (1998). From theory to practice: Toward a typology of projectmanagement styles. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(1), 33-48.

Shigley, J. E.; Mitchell, L. D. (1983). Mechanical engineering design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smith, P. G.; Reinertsen, D. G. (1998). Developing products in half the time. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Takeuchi, H.; Nonaka, I. (1986). The new development game. Harvard Business Review, 64(1), 137-146.

Tidd, J.; Bessant, JAbell, D. F. (1978). Strategic windows - The time to invest in a product or market when a strategic window is open. Journal of Marketing, 42(3), 21-26.

Vesey, J. T. (1991). The new competitors: They think in terms of speed-to-market. The Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 23-33.

Vesey, J. T. (1991). The new competitors: They think in terms of speed-to-market. The Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 23-33.

Ward, A. C., Liker, J. K., Cristiano, J. J., & Sobek, D. K., II. (1995). The second Toyota paradox: How delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Management Review, 36(3), 43-61.

Ward, A. C.; Liker, J. K.; Cristiano, J. J.; Sobek, D. K.; II. (1995). The second Toyota paradox: How delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Management Review, 36(3), 43-61.