Configurations of NPD - Production Interfaces and Interface Integration Mechanisms

Configurations of NPD – ProductionInterfaces and Interface IntegrationMechanisms

Frido E. Smulders, Harry Boer, Poul H.K. Hansen,Ebbe Gubi and Kees Dorst

This paper describes and illustrates different configurations of the interface between newproduct development and production processes, including both intra-firm and inter-firminterfaces. These configurations are partly based on a process view of product innovation andpartly on a structural view of product innovation. In addition to this typology of interfacessome integration mechanisms are described. The typology will serve as a basis for furtherresearch aimed at identifying consistent configurations of the different types of integrationmechanisms that are available for industry to increase the effectiveness and efficiency ofproduct innovation processes.

Introduction

D uring the last two decades various inter-connected trends have emerged, which

have had and will continue to have seriousimplications for the context in which industryoperates. The trends that are important for theargument developed in this paper, include:

. A (further) move from vertically integratedcompanies to core business driven compa-nies (specialists in a limited number offunctions) collaborating in supply chainsand networks. (e.g. Lewis, 1995; Trent &Monczka, 1998; Quinn, 1999).

. From management within one hierarchy(hierarchical control) to increased ’mana-gerial control’ of and by partners in themarket place (market control).

. From colocated collaboration on-site todispersed collaboration between sites,other companies or even competitors (e.g.Baldwin & Clark, 1997).

. From few to many essentially differentpartners.

In other words, the scene has changed froma relatively simple industrial texture to anincreasingly complex one.

The implications of these trends are many.The most interesting ones for the researchpresented here are that it is no longer within

the hierarchy that the communication onthe interface between functions involved inproduct innovation (e.g. marketing, productdevelopment, production development, pro-duction, distribution) takes place. Rather, thecommunication on and the management of theinterfaces move to the increasingly complexmarket of (possible) partners, i.e. suppliersand customers. At the same time, however,the increasing performance demands thatfollow from increasing demands from theend users of products (functionality, price,speed, variety) require collaboration if notintegration of the specialists working togetherin supply chains and networks. These trendsmust have serious impact on the process,technologies, organisation and managementof the interfaces between partners offering themarketing, product development, processdevelopment, production and distribution‘services’ that, together, are needed to initiate,develop, produce and bring to the marketplace, new products.

This results in a whole new category ofmanagement decisions, concerning the ‘design’of the supply chain that have to be taken bythe managers of the outsourcing companyand the suppliers. But what would be thegrounds for such decisions? What are thealternatives? And what are the pros andcons of these different types of interfaces?

Volume 11 Number 1 March 2002# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002. 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JFand 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT62

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13128450_Managing_in_an_Age_of_Modularity?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fe0c133f-7f89-4370-9ba4-a6c29861a6b6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyOTYyMDAxMjtBUzoxMDM4Mzc1MDMzMjgyNjRAMTQwMTc2ODE5ODU1NA==

This paper takes a first step towards buildingup a body of knowledge that could answersuch questions. It does so by providing aframework for different types of interactionsbetween companies, and developing a typol-ogy of interfaces. This typology will serve as abasis for further research aimed at identifyingconsistent configurations of the many differ-ent types of integration mechanisms that areavailable for industry to increase the effec-tiveness and efficiency of product innovationprocesses.

In order to reduce the complexity of theresearch, we decided to first focus on theinterface between new product development1

(NPD) and production. And in this, we willonly focus on new or customised, not stand-ard, parts, components, sub-assemblies orproducts, which have to go through somesort of development cycle in order to fit therequirements that have been formulated forthe new product.

The reason for looking at this particularinterface is that the quality of the NPD-process is largely a function of the imple-mentation of the NPD results within theproduction. Poor implementation means thatthe product and process descriptions NPDhas delivered are not yet finished or too poorfor production to actually start producing thenew or customised design. Boer and During(2001) have found that companies tend tooverlook the organisational adaptations re-quired to successfully develop, produce andlaunch innovations. This was found in allthree different types of innovation processesthey included in their research, i.e. productinnovation, process innovation and organ-isational innovation. This point, and the factthat NPD and production are essentiallydifferent types of activity, makes the NPD-production interface a particularly interestingone to study.

In order to find our way within thiscomplex environment of interfaces, we needto create an overall picture of these differenttypes of interfaces. In fact, a typology ofinterfaces that could serve as a more genericumbrella for the research projects in this area,including the ones that we are currentlyinvolved in (see Appendix). We will do thisby making use of two generic system per-spectives, i.e. the process view and structuralview of the product innovation process. Thestructural view of product innovation providesa description of the organisational units in-volved. The process view provides a descrip-tion of the set of activities needed to producea specific output. It implies a strong emphasison how work is done, in contrast to who isdoing the work. To complete the picture we

additionally need to address the question ofwhat is being done. This could be regarded asa separate, content view. In this paper, how-ever, we will approach this view as an inter-face combining the structural and processviews.

In the next two sections we will introducethe process and structural views. Then weshall combine the two views into a compre-hensive framework and introduce the notionof task as the interface between the two views.An example will illustrate some of ourcurrent thinking. Next, we will provide anoverview of integration mechanisms thatcompanies could use to configure the NPD –production interfaces so that they contributeto the success of their product innovationprocesses. The paper concludes with someimplications for further research.

Process view of product innovation

The notion of processes has gained significantattention in the past years due to the manage-rial focus on Business Process Reengineering(Davenport, 1993).

To create a process structure for NPD weneed to come up with a generic division ofactivities that together make up the processstructure. In the field of product innovationstudies the process of innovation is in itsbroadest conceptualisation believed to em-brace ‘periods of design and development,adoption, implementation, and diffusion’(Slappendel, 1996). These periods of activitiesmore or less cover the product innovationprocess, however these are too generic. Wehave found many other process descriptionsby different authors. Although most of thesemodels describe quite similar phases aroundthe actual development of the product, manyof them include different phases at thebeginning and the end of the product inno-vation process.

Some of them include strategic processeslike ‘strategic planning’ (Archer, 1971), ‘strat-egy formulation and policy making’ (Roozen-burg & Eekels, 1994), ‘direction setting’ (Buijs& Valkenburg, 2000), and ‘vision buildingand strategic analysis’ (Smulders et al., 1996)at the beginning of product innovation. At theend of the process authors include phases like‘launch’ (Cooper, 1993), ‘production and sales’(Andreasen & Hein, 2000), ‘market intro-duction’ (Smulders et al., 1996), ‘ramp upand production’ (Ulrich & Eppinger, 1995) and‘distribution, sales and use’ (Roozenburg &Eekels, 1994).

In this paper we will consider the productinnovation process as one single process

CONFIGURATIONS OF NPD 63

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 Volume 11 Number 1 March 2002

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216300521_Process_Innovation_Reengineering_Work_Through_Technology?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fe0c133f-7f89-4370-9ba4-a6c29861a6b6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyOTYyMDAxMjtBUzoxMDM4Mzc1MDMzMjgyNjRAMTQwMTc2ODE5ODU1NA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247685370_Technological_InnovationA_Methodology?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fe0c133f-7f89-4370-9ba4-a6c29861a6b6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyOTYyMDAxMjtBUzoxMDM4Mzc1MDMzMjgyNjRAMTQwMTc2ODE5ODU1NA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248453921_Winning_at_New_Products_Accelerating_the_Process_From_Idea_to_Launch?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fe0c133f-7f89-4370-9ba4-a6c29861a6b6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyOTYyMDAxMjtBUzoxMDM4Mzc1MDMzMjgyNjRAMTQwMTc2ODE5ODU1NA==

initiated by an idea and ending with a specificproduct ready to be delivered at the market.We will not include the use of the product bythe customer, nor the strategic phase oftenreferred to as ‘fuzzy front end’. Following thisdelimitation the process can be divided intofive generic phases: Concept Development,Product Development, Production Prep-aration, Production, Delivery (see Figure 1).This means that the object of innovation willgradually change over time. Of course, eachof these overall phases can be broken downinto several sub-processes.

In reality, innovation processes are highlyunlikely to evolve according to this neat, linearand sequential model. The real process willbe a more simultaneous and iterative way ofgoing through the various stages. However,all stages will somehow have to be addressedduring the product innovation process.

Structural view on productinnovation

There is a multitude of relationships betweenNPD and production. It is not longer the casethat companies just have an in-house NPDdepartment that has to collaborate with thein-house production. There are many moreconfigurations at hand in terms of e.g. earlyinvolvement of customers within the NPDprocesses, co-design with first tier suppliers,etc. All these different forms of involvementfrom external partners create different typesof interfaces with different patterns of inter-actions across the interface. In order to findour way within this complex environment,we need to create an overall picture of thedifferent types of interfaces.

Two starting points helped us create anoverall picture of the different types of inter-faces between NPD and production. First, ifwe want to create insight into the force fieldthat is present around the interface betweenthe NPD and the production processes weneed to identify the legal structure aroundthis interface. The simple fact that more thanone legal entity is involved when we havesuppliers taking part in the product innova-

tion process may have substantial influenceon the interface between NPD and produc-tion. Second, the party who is initiating theoutsourcing of work to another party willinfluence the force field and, through that, theinterface. This partner will be the one whois responsible for the product innovationprocess. We will label this party as the leadpartner and the party on the other side as thesupply partner. The lead partner initiatesall the work in the supply chain regardingthe customised part(s) of the new product.The positions of the two partners, relativeto each other, may affect the specific form ofthe interface between NPD and production.In the case of an inter-firm partnership, thecustomer is of course in the lead, at leastinitially. His formal power may in fact turnout to be much lower than in an intra-firmrelationship in which hierarchy, rather thanmarket mechanisms, determines who is actu-ally in the lead.

From these two starting points we createdour first idea of a typology for interfaces thatcan exist between NPD and production. In thefollowing section we will categorise theseinterfaces by two dimensions:

. What function(s) has the lead partner in-house (i.e. within one legal entity).

. What function(s) are delivered by thesupply partner(s) regarding new or cus-tomised systems, modules, components,and parts.

A typology of NPD – productioninterfaces

If we apply the two dimensions (in-housefunctions of lead partner, functions of supplypartner) to the companies we have seen inprevious and ongoing studies in which wehave been involved, we get four different typesof lead partners (see Table 1) on one axis. Onthe other axis we identified four possibleconfigurations of supply partners that play arole in the interface between the NPD and theproduction process. This makes a 464 matrixwith 16 possible variants. Only 12 out of these16 variants are relevant in the paper. The four

Figure 1. Process Structure of the Product Innovation Process


Volume 11 Number 1 March 2002 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

other variants miss either NPD or productionand therefore do not have an NPD-productioninterface. Although more than one relationshiptype is possible within one product innovationprocess, we will discuss and illustrate each ofthese 12 variants separately.

Lead partner type 1: Lead partner has NPDand production

This type of lead partners, with in-house NPDand in-house production, is still much aroundin business. This does not necessarily meanthough that they are fully integrated com-panies. In fact, we think that very few com-panies are left that do not do any outsourcingof part of NPD or part of production. Thisis also the only configuration that has aninternal as well as an external interfacebetween NPD and production. In this paperwe will not illustrate the internal interface.

Interface type 1A:

o Components/parts that are developedin-house and produced externally

o Interface NPD/production within twolegal entities

The lead partner makes the specifications,drawings and maybe even a prototype of thecomponents. A supply partner will do the fullproduction of these components accordingthose specifications. There are many exam-ples of this variant: metal body parts of cars,injection mould covers for televisions, micro-processors, mechanical subassemblies, etc.

Interface type 1B:

o Components/parts that are developedexternally and produced in-house


Table 1. Supplier Involvement Regarding Components and/or Sub-assemblies



In this configuration part of the design, e.g.the outer appearances of the new product,is outsourced to a famous designer. Examplesof this are the body designs of cars by e.g.Pinifarina, Bertone, or Alessi’s link withPhilips. This could also concern other partsof the product like specific engineering cal-culations or the development of a gearbox. Ofcourse more than one supplier can be in-volved in the development, each developingdifferent parts. However the lead partnerdoes the integration of all these parts.

Interface type 1C:

o Components/parts that are developedexternally and produced externally


This variant occurs when the lead partnerorders from the same supply partner thedevelopment as well as the production of aspecific component. In most cases such asupply partner has specific knowledge that isnot present at the lead partner. E.g. thedevelopment and production of optical lensesfor theatre lighting or the brake system ofcars. This interface becomes more complex ifthe lead partner has two such suppliers thathave to collaborate during their respectivedevelopment processes. E.g. one that suppliesthe lenses and another one that supplies thereflector of the same lamp.

Interface type 1D:

o Components/parts that are developedexternally (supplier X) and producedexternally (supplier Y)

o Interface NPD/production within threelegal entities

The development of specific components is out-sourced to supplier X. The production of thatsame component is outsourced to anothersupplier, Y. E.g. the design of a television setis done by a famous designer (supplier X) andproduced by an injection moulding company(supplier Y).

Lead partner type 2: Lead partner only hasproduction and no NPD

The lead companies in this case are verymuch oriented to production. They cannotdevelop new products themselves but needdesign companies to do that for them. Itmight be so that those companies in earlierdays produced their own products. However,the increased complexity of technologies andincreased market demands made it necessaryto either create a NPD-department, thus

becoming a lead partner type 1, or outsourcethe development. It is even possible that morethan one supplier is involved in order todevelop the complete product. The questionthen is, who is responsible for the integrationof the various parts, since the knowledge fordoing so might not be present at the leadpartner (there is no NPD).

Interface type 2A:

Outsourcing of production, misses the inter-face with NPD and is therefore outside thescope of this paper.

Interface type 2B:

o Components/parts that are developedexternally and produced in-house

o Interface NPD-production within twolegal entities

The development of (part of) the new productis outsourced. As already mentioned, theinvolvement of more than one supplier inthe development of the product raises thequestion of integration. However, we know ofcompanies that outsource the concept devel-opment and after that also outsource to adifferent supplier the engineering of allcomponents. In such a case there will be two(or more) suppliers involved in the NPD part.

We also know of companies in e.g. thebiking business, which outsource the devel-opment of mudguards, chain guards, lampsetc. Production takes place at the lead partner.These products are sold to the bicycleindustry for first fitting on new bikes and toretailers for second fitting.

Interface type 2C:

o Components/parts that are developed ex-ternally and produced in- and externally

o Interface NPD-production within twolegal entities

This interface type is expected to often gotogether with type 2B. E.g. the product isdeveloped by a design agency. Howeversome components need additional develop-ment by another supplier who also producesthat component and delivers it to the leadpartner. Let us consider again a company thatproduces lamps for bikes as a lead partner.They demand a design of a new lamp by adesign agency, which comes up with a newlamp that has an electronic component.Neither the agency nor the lead partner hasenough knowledge on this technology andthe lead partner is also not able to produce thecomponent. The lead partner asks a supplierof type 2C to do additional development and



produce the lamp. The assembly will be in theproduction line of the lead partner.

Interface type 2D:

o Components/parts that are developed in-and externally and produced externally

o Interface NPD/production within threelegal entities

Here we have the situation that product de-velopment is outsourced to company X andpart of the production of that newly devel-oped product is again outsourced to companyY. The other part is done by the lead partner.If for example the lead partner is very goodat injection moulding, but also needs for acertain product a customised metal com-ponent or sub-assembly, then they need tooutsource that to another supplier (Y).

Lead partner type 3: Lead partner only hasNPD and no production

Lead partners like these could be largeengineering, design or trading companiesthat are able to do the development of newproducts. They do not have any production,other than maybe a prototype shop. Allproduction must be outsourced according totheir specifications. Another possibility is thatthey outsource part of the NPD (e.g. engineer-ing, concept, etc.). They might have a ship-ping department.

Interface type 3A:

o Components/parts that are developedin-house and produced externally


In this situation the lead partner sends thedrawings, bill of materials and other relevantinformation to the supplier that will producethe component, sub-assembly or product. E.g.a design agency comes up with the design ofa computer cable roll-up device that shortensthe hanging cables and wires in a simple way.They outsource the production and assemblyto the same supplier and let them ship itdirectly to the retailers. Or a lead partner thatdevelops household appliances and let themproduce in China.

Interface type 3B:

Outsourcing of NPD, misses the interfacewith production regarding the outsourcedcomponent and is therefore outside the scopeof this paper.

If part of NPD is outsourced, then type 3Cand 3D are possible interface types.

Interface type 3C:

o Components/parts that are developedin- and externally and produced extern-ally


The lead partner in this situation outsourcespart of the NPD and the production of a com-ponent, sub-assembly or complete productto one and the same supplier. In the abovementioned example of the cable roll-updevice, not only production is outsourced tothe same supplier but also the engineering.Another example is the combination of thisinterface with type 3A, in which for examplean electronic component and the rest of theproduction including the assembly, is out-sourced to another supplier.

Interface type 3D:

o Components/parts that are developedin- and externally and produced exter-nally by two (or more) suppliers

o Interface NPD/production within three(or more) legal entities

Here, the lead partner outsources the NPDof a component or subassembly to supplier Xand the production of that same element tosupplier Y. Consider the situation that thelead partner is a company that is brand ownerof a furniture line. Because they are brandowners, they do the conceptual developmentof new products. Then they outsource theengineering to a specialised engineeringcompany, while the production of that newproduct is outsourced to another supplier.

Lead partner type 4: Lead partner has noNPD and no production

Type 4 lead partners are typically brandowners and trading companies. They haveto outsource both NPD and production andtherefore to orchestrate all product innovationactivities across company borders. Interfacetype 4A and 4B are not relevant in this paperbecause there is no interface between NPDand production.

Interface type 4C:

o Components/parts that are developedexternally and produced externally bythe same supplier

o Interface NPD-production within onelegal entity

Here the lead partner outsources the devel-opment and production of a component, sub-assembly or complete product to one supplier.



If this supplier is the only supplier, then hedevelops and produces the complete productunder the brand name of the lead partner.When there are more suppliers, e.g. interfacetype 4B, then this supplier might develop andproduce a component or sub-assembly to fitin the end product.

Interface type 4D:

o Components/parts that are developedexternally and produced externally bytwo (or more) different suppliers

o Interface NPD-production within three(or more) legal entities

This interface type concerns the outsourcingof a component, sub-assembly or product totwo different suppliers. One that developsthe part and the other one to produce it. Anexample is a lead partner in the child carebusiness. They bring on the market all kind ofproducts to carry and transport babies. Forevery product in their portfolio, they select adesign agency and a separate supplier forproduction.

Discussion

Although the division in different types ofinterfaces may seem somehow theoretical, forall of these types mentioned we found oneor more real life examples. Of course, some ofthese types occur quite frequently while othertypes are much more rare. In future researchwe want to find out what contingenciesinfluence successful co-ordination of the tasksat hand for each of these interfaces. That willbring us closer to providing answers to themanagerial issues (like ‘when to outsourcewhat’) that were mentioned in the introduc-tion. But first we will complete our modelingby combining the process and the structuralviews on product innovation to support thatresearch.

Combining the structural and theprocess view

By combining the structural and the processview we can further classify the interfaces in amatrix like framework (see Table 2).

The relationship between the structure andthe process is effectuated via tasks. Tasksdefine what has to be done, e.g. in terms ofexternal requirements and conditions, internalconstraints and specified objectives. Startingwith the overall strategic task of the enterprise,i.e. its mission, we may develop a structureof tasks and sub-tasks. A task will be carriedout in one structural unit but will depend onother tasks in other structural units. Further-more, in order to realise a given task, a seriesof activities is required. Thus, tasks relateactivities to structural units.

The link between two tasks and a specificrelationship with a chain of activities consti-tutes the interface, see Figure 2. In the par-ticular case the supply partner is involved inthe product development process and twointerfaces have been identified:

1. Interface 1 describes the portfolio of effortsrelated to task 1 at the lead partner andtask 3 at the supply partner according tothe concept development phase.

2. Interface 2 describes the portfolio of effortsrelated to task 1 at the lead partner andtask 3 at the supply partner according tothe product design phase.

Example of managing the NPD –production interface withinvolvement of suppliers

Company I develops and manufacturesaudio and video equipment. For a number ofyears the company had focused on definingcore competencies and outsourcing parts of

....

..

Table 2. A Matrix of Generic Phases and Interface Types

Phases

Interface typeConcept

developmentProduct

developmentProduct

preparationProduction Delivery

1A

1B

4D



traditional production. This led to a significantincrease in the efficiency of the whole supplychain. Following the success within productionof components the company considered apply-ing similar methods in new product develop-ment. This included outsourcing of both thedevelopment and the production of compo-nents. The final assembly would still be doneinternally. In the automotive industry, thisapproach has proven to be successful but thebatch sizes in company I were much smaller.

For some years, the company had out-sourced part of the software development butthe experiences were not very satisfactory.Some of the internal software people pointedto the role of ownership as the problematicpart. It was felt difficult to create this feelingof ownership with the software suppliers.

Considering these experiences the com-pany defined a new approach in the productdevelopment process. The initial conceptdevelopment was done internally. As soonas top management approved the concept theinvolvement of pre-selected partners wereinitiated. This phase was named the ‘archi-tectural phase’. During this phase the productspecifications are defined only loosely andmainly qualitatively. The focus is on definingthe modules and, in particular, the interfacesbetween them.

The architectural phase is split into fivesmaller phases: 1) involvement of partners,2) development of modules and interfaces – I,3) evaluation, 4) development of modules andinterfaces – II, and 5) evaluation and accept.In each of the development phases at leastthree alternatives are required. During theevaluation phases the different stakeholders(assembly, service, purchasing, logistics, qual-ity assurance, test, etc.) are confronted withthe alternative solutions. The fact that the solu-tions are physical and that there are alternatives,makes it possible for the stakeholders to com-ment on and assess the different solutions.

After the final acceptance of the architecturethe traditional product development processbegins. During this process the different part-ners formulate and negotiate specifications.Each partner is responsible for defining theirown specifications regarding their part(s) orcomponent of the final product. By doing so,the amount of ownership of these specifica-tions and amount of responsibility regardingthese parts or components is increased sub-stantially.

The first attempt to organise the processthis way was a product with 10 well-definedmodules, three of which were fully developedby external partners. External partners pro-duced seven of the modules. The product

Figure 2. Schematic Illustration of the Combined Process and Structural View Specifying the Interfaces



could be assembled manually with no need touse of any specialised tools.

Company I is so convinced about the powerand the way of handling the architecturalphase that they have launched a trainingprogram aiming at training a new category ofemployees: product architects.

A new project has recently been launchedwithin the core products of Company I. Thisproject is to follow the same principles asthe one reported above. By doing this, thecompany can increase the capacity of theirproduct development function and therebyadd more features for customisation.

Configurations of interfaces andintegration mechanisms

The objective of this paper was to proposea typology of interfaces that would providea basis for further research. This ‘static’model of the interfaces has been presentedabove. But in order to develop answers tothe managerial issues mentioned in theintroduction, we need to look at the goalsthat people have in dealing with these inter-faces.

An important issue in the field of NPDthat could determine the way people dealwith these interfaces is the need to reachintegration in development processes (Buijs& Valkenburg, 2000; Andreasen & Hein,2000). Andreasen and Hein have an explicitmotivation for this. ‘Product developmentcannot be carried out in the best possible wayif it is allowed to disintegrate into differentareas of specialisation, areas of activity orareas of responsibility’ (p. 2).

We will now explore whether the typologyof interfaces that we have constructed can becombined with the many different types ofintegration mechanisms that are available forindustry. The case study of company I is justone example of the many different configura-tions of NPD – NPD and NPD productioninterfaces that companies may consider toincrease the success of their product innova-tion processes. Furthermore, the case studyshows a few of the many mechanisms that aretheoretically available to achieve an efficientand effective level of co-ordination or evenintegration on these interfaces. This section ofthe paper proposes a typology of integrationmechanisms that may be used in researchprojects aimed at identifying and explainingconfigurations of interfaces and integrationmechanisms that appear to enhance thesuccess of product innovation processes.Some of these projects will be briefly de-scribed in the final section of this paper.

The simplest form of an interface element isbased on informal comunication between thepartners. However, as process, structures andtasks become more complex, these informalcontacts often become insufficient, and con-sequently they must be supplemented byother integration mechanisms, includingmore formal ones. Organisation theory offerspart of a classification of co-ordination andintegration mechanisms. Of particular rele-vance are publications by Galbraith (1973)and Mintzberg (1979). However, according toPaashuis and Boer (1997) there is also a rangeof non-organisational mechanisms that mayserve to achieve co-ordination and integrationacross interfaces, both on the intra-firm andthe inter-firm levels of product innovationprocesses. These authors propose four cate-gories of mechanisms namely: integration bystrategic, process, technological and organisa-tional integration, which can be understoodas follows.

Integration by strategy

Goals and strategies serve several purposes.The selection of specific goals and strategiesto achieve these goals, has considerableconsequences. Two issues ought to have greatimpact on the design of processes, tech-nologies and organisational arrangements,namely:

. The choice of product-market combina-tions.

. The role companies want to play in themarket place, both individually and collab-oratively, through the qualifying criteriathat govern the market and decisionsregarding the intentions to win orders inthe market.

Furthermore, goals give a sense of direction toemployees, motivate them, act as guidelinesfor decision making, and provide a standardfor assessment. If well and unambiguouslycommunicated, goals and strategies havegreat co-ordinating influence on the behavi-our of (groups of) employees.

Without at least a common sense of direc-tion, it is essentially impossible to knowwhether current NPD projects are performedeffectively, i.e. contribute to the individualcompanies’ and indeed the supply chain’s ornetwork’s strategy. And similarly, if no orconflicting NPD goals and strategies havebeen established, it will be impossible todetermine the most suitable configuration ofactivities, technologies and organisationalarrangements, both within and on the inter-face between firms.



Integration by process

Perhaps the most important and certainlythe least understood ‘mechanism’ of improv-ing NPD performance is re-designing thedesign process itself, so that it is optimisedfrom within. Related to business processre-engineering, this involves eliminating ac-tivities that do not add value, and simplifyingand, if possible, integrating (also organisa-tionally) or even automating (technologically)remaining activities. Research aimed at un-derstanding the process of NPD is relativelyrecent and the dynamic, relatively unpredict-able and pulse-like (rather than flow-like)character of the process (Verganti 1994) doesnot make the process easy to understand and(re-)design.

The product development process can bevalidly described in two ways: as a mostlylinear Rational Problem Solving activity, andas a circular, iterative process of ReflectivePractice and Learning (Dorst, 1997). In theNPD cooperation between companies, boththe problem solving activity and the learninghave to be supported and coordinated.

Integration by technology

Technology consists of the knowledge, ex-perience, skills, methods, techniques, tools,machines and equipment people in organis-ations use to perform their task. The widerange of technologies used in organisationscan be divided into three broad categories,namely: ‘humanware’, software and hard-ware. Given these categories, there are severalways of achieving technological integration.

‘Humanware’ concerns the knowledge,experience, skills, not only in a technicalsense, but also including the social andmanagerial skills (e.g. communication, leader-ship, decision making, project management),that people use to do their job. Important‘humanware’-related aspects that affect inte-gration appear to be associated with people’s:

. (Predominantly technical) knowledge ofupstream and downstream activities.

. Social and managerial skills.

. Attitude towards cross-functional co-operation collaboration and communication.

Important mechanisms contributing to thedesigners performing their own task moreeffectively (i.e. first-time-right in less time) are:

. Formal training.

. Training-on-the-job.

. Job rotation (e.g. designers working on theshop floor, for a while).

. Management not only committing itself, butreally involving itself and setting the example.

Software technologies are the methods, workpractices, procedures, either automated, in theform of computer software, or not, that peopleuse to perform their task. Some designtechnologies, especially the applications ofinformation or communication technology,are integrating in themselves, for examplecomputer-aided design (CAD), computeraided process planning (CAPP) and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM); engineering databases (EDB) andelectronic data interchange (EDI). Other ap-plications, such as teleconferencing, supportthe communication between people workingon different locations, but are still very muchin their infancy. Yet other not necessarilyautomated technologies in this category, suchas quality function deployment (QFD), forcedesign and marketing to collaborate if thetechniques are to be applied to their fullpotential. Failure mode and effects analysis(FMEA) and the whole range of Design for‘X’ (DfX) (X stands for assembly, manufac-turing, etc.) basically do the same for theinterfaces between design, manufacturingand assembly.

Hardware technology includes tools, ma-chines, computers, handling devices andmany other pieces of equipment. In the caseof product design, hardware in the form ofcomputers and communication linkages is themedium that enables the use of some of thesoftware applications mentioned before. In adispersed NPD environment, hardware andsoftware technologies (Information & Com-munication Technology, ICT) are likely toplay a key role to facilitate communication onthe interfaces between partners.

Integration by organisation

This refers to the use of suitable organisationalarrangements, i.e. the more or less durable,formal and informal, structural and culturalarrangements organisations use to divide andco-ordinate labour. The following, not necess-arily exhaustive, list provides a continuum ofhorizontal linkages, ranging from informal toformal, temporary to permanent, and process-oriented (grouping by function) to product-oriented (grouping by output), ways of linking(groups of) people (e.g. Galbraith 1973):

. Standardisation and formalisation, i.e. in-tegration through e.g. paper work.

. Direct, face-to-face communication.

. Liaison roles.

. Task forces and project teams.

. A matrix structure.

. Secondment.

. Co-location.



. Self-contained groups.

. Role combination.

Whereas these alternatives may all be feasiblewithin the firm, some of them are less likely tocontribute much to in dispersed NPD. Themost likely candidates worth considering tosupport communication between companiesare standardisation, liaison roles and second-ment.

Summary and conclusion

The typology of NPD – production interfacesproposed in this paper combines structuraland process views on product innovation anduses the concept of task to combine the two.Twelve relevant interfaces between NPD andproduction were identified. Furthermore, thepaper describes a classification of integrationmechanisms.

We are using this work and will continueto do so, in research aimed at identifyingconsistent configurations of interfaces andintegration mechanisms. That is, differentconfigurations of different types of integra-tion mechanisms that fit to the different NPD– production (and also NPD – NPD) inter-faces in such a way that the ’sum-total’ effec-tively contributes to the success of productinnovation processes. This should provide asolid basis for answering the managerialissues that are now arising in this importantarea of current business reality.

An aspect that has so far not been includedin our research is the role of contingencies likethe newness of the product, the complexityof the parts that are being outsourced, thereason for outsourcing (capacity or capability),former experiences with the supply partner,etc. Future research will be aimed at findingout the relevance of these contingenciesregarding their influence on successful co-ordination of the tasks at hand for each ofthese interfaces.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements: The first author wants tothank the Netherlands Organization forScientific Research (NWO) for their support.

Note

1. In this paper, NPD will be referred to as theprocess that leads to the creation of product andprocess descriptions. Production is the processtransforming these descriptions into physicalproducts and delivering them to the market.

References

Andreasen, M.M. and Hein, L. (2000) IntegratedProduct Development. Technological University ofDenmark, Copenhagen.

Archer, L.B. (1971) Technological innovation: amethodology. Inforlink, Frimley.

Baldwin, C. and Clark, K. (1997) Managing in anage of modularity. Havard Business Review,September–October, 84–93.

Boer, H. and During, W.E. (2001) Innovation, whatinnovation? A comparison between product,process and organizational innovation, Inter-national Journal of Technology Management, 22,1–3, 83–107.

Buijs, J.A. and Valkenburg, R. (2000) Integraleproductontwikkeling. Lemma, Utrecht.

Cooper, R.G. (1993) Winning at new products:Accelerating the process from idea to launch. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.

Davenport, Thomas H. (1993) Process innovation –Reengineering Work through Information Technology.Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

Dorst, C.H. (1997) Describing design – a comparison ofparadigms. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Tech-nology.

Galbraith, J.R. (1973) Designing complex organiz-ations. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Lewis, J. (1995) The connected corporation. The FreePress, New York.

Mintzberg, H. (1979) The structuring of organiza-tions. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Paashuis, V. and H. Boer (1997) Organizing for con-current engineering: an integration mechanismframework. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 8,2, 79–89.

Quinn, J. (1999) Strategic outsourcing: Leveragingknowledge capabilities. Sloan Management Review,Summer, 10–12.

Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995) ProductDesign: Fundamentals and Methods. Wiley, WestSussex.

Slappendel, C. (1996) Perspectives on innovationin organizations. Organization Studies, 17, 1, 107–129.

Smulders, F.E.H.M., de Caluwe, L. and vanNieuwenhuizen, O. (2001) Last stage of NPD-project: intervention in existing processes?! InIdea Safari, Proceedings of the 7th EuropeanConference on Creativity and Innovation, EACI,Enschede (forthcoming).

Smulders, F.E.H.M., van Engelen, J.M.L.M. andKiers, M. (1996) Handboek voor commerciele In-genieurs, thema Productinnovatie. Samson, Alphena.d. Rijn.

Trent, R. and Monczka, R. (1998) Purchasing andsupply management: trends and changesthroughout the 1990s. International Journal ofPurchasing and Materials Management, Fall, 2–11.

Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.T. (1995) ProductDesign and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Verganti, R. (1994) Re-engineering the new productdevelopment process. In De Weerd-Nederhof,P.C., Kerssens-van Drongelen, I.C. and Verganti,R., Managing the R&D process. University ofTwente/Politecnico di Milano/Twente QualityCentre Enschede.



Appendix: Research projects inwhich the authors are involved

At the School for Industrial Design Engineer-ing, Delft University of Technology, TheNetherlands, a range of research projects istaking place. The most relevant ones for thispaper are:

. The interface between design agencies andtheir clients (who are the lead partners).Aimed at understanding the interface fromthe perspective of the supplying NPD-partner. The interfaces studied in thisproject are 1B-type and 2B-type interfaces.

. An explorative study of the actual inter-ventions that facilitate or provoke thenecessary changes within the operationalprocesses (Smulders et al. 2001). Thisproject is aimed at developing a betterunderstanding of the ‘soft side’ of theinterface between a lead partner and the –in this case – internal supply partner.

. A study of the ramp-up or implementationof newly developed products in the pro-duction process, aimed at developing abetter understanding of what is actuallypassing the interface between NPD andproduction and what is being done withthat regarding the ramp-up processes.

At the Center for Industrial Production atAalborg University, Denmark, a range ofrelevant projects is in process. The topicsstudied include:

. Sourcing of new technology. This project isaimed at the effective implementation andabsorption of new technology throughcollaborative relationships with externalpartners.

. The strategic use of product architecture tocombine customer-oriented product inno-

vation with internal standardisation andcost reduction.

. Design for Logistics. The purpose of thissingle case based research project is toinvestigate the potential interactions be-tween products and logistics by studyingthe structure of existing products and theirsupply chains, and then developing aframework for concurrent product andsupply chain development.

. Distributed collaboration in NPD. Thisproject is aimed at identifying best practicemodels for ICT-supported collaborativehigh speed/right speed NPD.

Frido E. Smulders is assistant professor ofManagement of Innovation at the facultyof Industrial Design Engineering, DelftUniversity of Technology, The Netherlands.His research focuses on the interfacebetween product development and pro-duction. Harry Boer is professor of Organ-isational Design and Change at the Centerfor Industrial Production, Aalborg Univer-sity. His research interests are in the inte-gration of operations, incremental changeand learning, and radical innovation. PoulH.K. Hansen is associate professor at theCenter for Industrial Production, AalborgUniversity, Denmark. His research focuseson product development in networks. EbbeGubi is a PhD student at the Center forIndustrial Production, Aalborg University,Denmark. His research project focuses onDesign for Logistics. Kees Dorst is seniorresearcher in Design Methods at the facultyof Technology Management, EindhovenUniversity of Technology, The Nether-lands.



Documents

Configurations of NPD - Production Interfaces and Interface Integration Mechanisms