8.4.2 Product development project

The product development process and its decisions, outcomes, activities and techniques are going to be improved from the results of the benchmark study. The milestones in the project need to be set, and then followed in the project to see if they have been accomplished partially or completely. The targets for the later stages and the whole project may need to be reviewed as the project proceeds through the various stages, because of the new knowledge and achievements in the early stages. The benchmark metrics are accepted into the project and used during the project, and adjusted if necessary. For example, in past projects, the product quality may have been identified as low because of poor packaging and storage properties; this means more creative and controlled package design together with more extensive storage tests, and metrics of packaging quality such as improving reject level on the production line or in distribution, and lengthened storage life of the new product. In putting the benchmark improvements into practice, the most important factor is to have the cooperation and commitment of the multifunctional team. This means their ownership of the project goals, cooperation across the team and good team leadership (McDonough, 2000), as well as the resources and knowledge to make the changes, and top management support. Self-assessment of team members is the most important basis for product development improvement; there can be comparison between projects in the company, and also with other companies as shown in Box 8.2.

Box 8.2 Self-assessment and benchmarking product development in five Irish firms The main objectives of the study were:     · establish benchmarks of current practice in the management of the       product development process in five manufacturing firms drawn from       differing industries in Ireland;     · increase awareness of areas of choice in the management of product       development among manufacturing firms in Ireland with a view to       improving their management of the product development process. Each company selected two recent product development projects for assessment. Each project illustrated development in different situations or different approaches to development. The projects represented different degrees of product change and manufacturing process change. Six of the ten projects fell into the category of incremental or derivative projects, four of the projects were platform or next-generation projects. The self-assessment and benchmarking approach consisted of three generic phases: data gathering and initial self-assessment; communication of insights both within and between the firms; development and discussion of action plans. All three phases required the active participation of up to ten staff members in each firm, drawn from the product development projects under review. Arising out of the research each firm identified a range of performance limiting practices in its development process, which had caused schedule delay or cycle time extension through:     · insufficient up-front technology planning and development,     · reacting to short-term resource shortages,     · accepting productivity limiting practices,     · inadequate product and product line planning,     · allowing requirements to float,     · reliance on major versus incremental changes. The issues were concentrated in the areas of market focus, teamworking, transfer of manufacturing, leadership, resourcing and performance evalua- tion. Source: After Coughlan and Brady, 1995.

In the large company, it can be between different projects, and in small companies working in 'clusters', it can be between the member companies of the cluster group. It is important to have self-assessment in company projects before cooperating with other companies. A difficulty is in identifying suitable companies for the comparison, gaining access to these companies' information at a useful level of detail, and deriving useful guidance for the company's product development from this comparison (Coughlan and Brady, 1995).