26-
Multi-Project Strategy and Market-Share Growth: The
Benefits of Rapid Design Transfer in New Product Development
Kentaro Nobeoka and Michael A. Cusumano
MIT Sloan School of Management
WP#3686-94/BPS
May 16, 1994
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
Multi-Project Strategy and Market-Share Growth: The
Benefits of Rapid Design Transfer in New Product Development
Kentaro Nobeoka and Michael A. Cusumano
MIT Sloan School of Management
WP#3686-94/BPS
May 16, 1994
y.LT. LIBRARIES
JUN
2
1994
RECEIVED
Multi-Project
and
Strategy
Market-Share
The Benefits of Rapid Design Transfer
May
3,
in
New
Growth:
Product Development
1994
Kentaro Nobeoka* and Michael A. Cusumano**
*Kobe University
**Massachusetts
Acknowledgments:
The authors
gratefully
Institute
of Technology
acknowledge the financial support of the Sloan
Foundation and the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
at
the
Abstract
lines
In automobiles and other industries most large manufacturers have several product
and constantly develop new products to replace existing products or to add completely
new product
lines.
is
extremely
as
well
has
existing
as
been
Managing
important
a
different
firm
projects
leverage
relate
to
each other technologically
engineering
its
and
financial
resources,
Nonetheless, there
and designs, across multiple projects.
explores multi-project management.
paper is to explore product-development strategies used in the
technologies
research
little
way
the
helping
in
that
The purpose of this
management of multiple automotive
in
multi-project
development.
strategy
projects.
An underlying hypothesis is that differences
should influence the effectiveness of an entire firm in new product
This paper proposes
new product development
sequential
design
a
typology of multi-project
four
projects
into
and
design
transfer,
new
types:
strategies,
design,
Based on
modification.
rapid
this
which categorizes
design
typology,
transfer,
this
paper
on market
Using data on 210 new products introduced by 17 worldwide auto
competitiveness.
manufacturers between 1980 and 1991, this paper argues that high performers (measured
Under the
by market share growth) more often utilized a "rapid design transfer" strategy.
of one
part
as
developed
designs
technologies
and
new
transfer
strategy,
design
rapid
examines
project
are
the
potential
quickly
influence
transferred
to
of
different
other
projects
types
of
within
multi-project
the
firm.
strategies
Introduction
1
Since
the
management of new product development has become
numerous academic researchers have undertaken
competition,
global
and efficient new product development projects have been
empirical
individual
have
projects
the
projects
within
projects
the
which includes policies
linkages, and
Most of
factors
the
new
that
led
et
al.,
such as automobiles, however, large
A
products.
existing
development
multiple
imdertake
constantly
replace
to
effective
Rolhwell,
1969;
in
performance
firm's
in
determined by the effectiveness of the management of the entire portfolio of
is
new product
or
lines
management
Marquis,
and
industries
and
lines
how
of
various industries.
explored
(Myers
many
In
product
add new product
to
have
studies
success
1990).
several
least
at
market
firm,
marketplace
to
Zirger and Maidique,
1974;
firms
Many
development projects.
product
studies
issue
central
approaches and performance measures for
focused on managerial
has
research
in
a
This
firm.
design
for
among
transfers
multi-project
multiple
within
strategy
a
and inter-project
projects
performance measured by growth
impact on a firm's market
their
explores
study
revenues
in
over time.
Because
of
number of recent
Braun,
Crawford,
1991;
manufacturers
in
products
U.S.
than
advantage
because
or
of
At
various
in
of
ability
their
The second body of
new product
individual
projects
as
development
product
frequent
new
combination
revenues
than
introductions at
by
firms
of
well
studies
corporate
as
engineering
introductions,
these
two capabilities
which
level,
speed
product
attracting
report
studies
and
increasing
Womack
long
new
more
competitive
a
new
with
products
numbers of product
et
a!.,
1990; Smothers,
resources
in
are
while the
may
provide
two
These
utilized.
and
firms
yet
with
different
of
new
projects
and
types
product-development
individual
interrelated
has focused on the speed of
first
But
issues.
more opportunities
to
new customers and meeting changing customer needs more
have
von
leading
that
introduce
creates
1991;
has primarily focused on the speed and the frequency of
the
capabilities,
into
1988;
al.,
and Barczak,
existing
replace
to
III
frequency
this
offerings
et
completion speed of individual
develop
to
that
Japanese
the
segments (Abegglen and Stalk, 1985; Dertouzos
1990).
tend
industries,
the
various
time,
European competitors and
the
or
McDonough
1991;
and customer needs, a
technologies
in
time
same
the
more frequently, and expand
technology
lead
Cordero,
1991;
1992).
Japan,
of change
pace
have focused on
studies
and Fujimoto,
(Clark
projects
accelerating
the
development
lead
times
and
infrequent
the
grow
easily
new-product
introductions.
The concept of
two perspectives.
sufficient
for
A
effective
the
multi-project
firm's
capability
management of
strategy
to
a
in
develop
stream
of
this
a
paper covers the gap between these
single
project
alone
new products over
is
time.
not
necessarily
Developing a
and components
products
final
new products over many
stream of
successful
individual
and taking repeated advantage of designs
years
more than one product without overly compromising
in
requires
specific
planning
strategy,
Among academic
project.
and
researchers,
management of multiple new product development
above the
coordination
of the
level
of the
of
both multiple product
across
efforts
design
made
been
has
study
little
the
the
lines
and multiple generations of products from the perspective of the corporation as a whole.
recent
In
importance
(Hayes,
planning
of
et
Wheelwright
Wheelwright and Sasser (1989)
strategic
management
projects.
(Similar
Clark,
the
the
of
discussions
cleaner
managing
application
map and
of a
the
of
core
firm's
examined
frameworks and performance
2
Dimensions
management
Effective
considered
and
Prahalad
strategy
for
one
as
Multi-Project
of
of
the
Hamel,
specific
management of
multiple
projects
relate
performance
in
a
to
the
Consideration
of
product
(inter-product
lines
projects
organizationally
overall
in
is
product
a
each
derivative
on
at
two firms
discussed
also
in
the
planning and the
development and the
the
However, these researchers have not
study.
of
different
by
these
has
been
explained
strategies
to
as
well
(Meyer and
The
on
includes
and
Utterback,
both
critical
have
structure
the
the
one
is
should
management
potentially
(Wemerfelt,
competitiveness
within a firm
as
resources
or
1984;
new product development, examining
technologically
linkages)
and
competencies
firm's
a
projects
strategy
linkages).
development.
have
(1993)
focusing
special
resources
other
line
its
Wheelwright and
and
1988,
al.,
importance of the
the
between
respect
all
market,
strategic
Utterback
this
aspects
among
firm's
et
and
platform
Strategy
With
multi-project
(evolutionary
to
firm's
a
primary
linkages
effective
firm's
of
1990).
1993).
marketplace.
the
in
Utterback,
product evolution patterns
products,
relationship
the
new products
of
and
strategic
The concepts of managing the product generation
technology.
product family are related
empirically
Meyer
the
by suggesting a framework known as
issue
to
it
and
of
portfolio
a
Hayes,
in
They emphasized
families.
evolution
the
sequence
a
distinctive
a
strategic
this
Meyer
industry.
management of product
yet
with
product generation map, and by applying
vacuum
of
1989;
Sasser,
seen
also
They have discussed
1992).
and
product
are
evolution
the
emphasizing
started
example, have discussed the importance of the effective
for
core
a
have
researchers
managing
and
for
1988,
al.,
some
however,
years,
the
issue
Different
ways
different
impacts
on a
of
organizations.
their
between
between
these
for
understand the
to
1993).
linkages
linkages
of
way
the
past
linkages
the
and
different
present
technically
firm's
and
effectiveness
One of
and incremental
innovation
radical
focuses
Kleinschmidt and Cooper,
studies
have
change
(Ettlie,
et
also
is
product
discussed
strategy
between
distinction
the
1986;
has focused on the
that
literature
the
is
Dewar and Dutton,
1984;
al.,
body of
a
on
literature
Many
There
1991).
existing
the
in
newness.
technological
of
extent
primary
the
effects
of the relatedness or the newness of a project's technical requirements compared to a
firm's
existing
Abemathy and
useful
competencies
regarding
insights
changes
can
help
sustain
from
technologies
the
unfamiliar to the firm (Meyer and Roberts,
This
to
products
existing
and
characterize
This
with
market
competitiveness
product
to
of an
others
development.
have
from
segment
clearly
to
These
be
also
on
capture
a
two
same product
another
While,
product
the
in
for
line
a
that
line
case,
first
an
for
to
entire
lines.
underestimated
within
some
with
related
or
managers
strategy
technologies
products
new
is
firm.
the
or
modifications
or
replacement,
a
targets
firms
enhance
the
second case, they transfer technologies of one
applications
different
on
in
different
new market segment and achieve economies of scope
implications
different
to
the
in
technologies
been often
have
that
product
existing
product.
product,
product
firm's
a
existing
utilize
original
provide
and
and across multiple product
transferred
original
the
of
redesign of the
a
often
researchers
for
insufficient
two other perspectives
to
1965).
based on
products
than
(Hollander,
products
existing
to
incremental
with
whether a product's technology
effectiveness
based
in
related
market
market
existing
and thus
first
1986).
generations
are
that
can
they
cases
the
ways
enhancements can be used
other
but
on
focuses
technologies
First,
useful
is
different
to
--
multiple
over
study
respect
--
distinction
understand
to
portfolio
project
simple
of
type
an
in
technologies
in
related
While
strategy.
enable firms to be
standing
chance to grow
better
a
development
product
may sometimes
derived
firm's
a
new products based on
with
firm
new market, products
a
Furthermore,
a
technologies
1957;
Jones,
This distinction has provided some
1986).
of
effectiveness
the
new
products with completely
monopolize
Meyer and Roberts,
1985;
Clark,
and
(Johnson
marketing
and
technology
in
of
the
competition
market
"incremental
same
corporate
the
at
change"
in
scheme
level.
It
is
necessary to analyze the impact of the incremental changes by separating effects of the pure
product
enhancement verses the
Second,
factor
that
is
that
the
affects
a
of
timing
firm's
to
exploiting
is
a
technology
that
is
originally
should
be
another
critical
Depending on whether the original technology
and designs
impact on the competitiveness of new products
that
technologies
existing
already obsolete or
technologies
existing
strategies.
competitiveness.
modified and exploited
modifications
scope
in
competitive
still
within
the
the
market.
usually
new, the same degree of
relatively
should
firm
It
becomes
is
a
less
have
a
different
reasonable assumption
competitive
as
time
passes.
(Teece,
strategy
have
there
1983;
multiple
sharing
been
has
projects
scope
the
when
timing
the
1989),
on
focusing
studies
Clark,
among
occurred
actually
numerous
been
Goldhar and Jelinek,
1980;
technologies
or
activities
while
particular,
In
all
but
GM
has
ignored.
GM
and Chrysler
been trying to share the same platform (the basic framework of the automobile design)
not
among
development
in
platforms
with
market and
Although
Chrysler
at
leveraged
by the end of the
profits,
there
that
design
worked
1980's
scope
economies
limits
to
are
new
each
with
Chrysler did
technology
the
in
new products based on
the
from
there
on
project
frequently,
up
introduction
changes,
proposes
study
sources
a
for
of
using
on
210
may need
the
multiple
of
base
to
firm
increase
the
in
the
1980's.
and
sales
its
K-car platform had
enhanced
example suggests the usefulness
example suggests
Chrysler
the
competitiveness,
potentially
processes,
a
than
frequently
differences
these
require
different
particularly
for
tries
to
in
of
types
inter-project
new
a
utilize
new technology can be leveraged among
be
should
there
transfer
ongoing coordination
organizational
different
occurs
project.
Japanese
sometimes
coordinate
firms
structures
between
multiple
and processes
concurrent
introduce
that
ongoing
between
projects
many
or
different
projects
to
speed
products.
three
design,
multi-project
different
be
technology
current
on
way,
this
in
example,
focuses
typology
between
a
While
project.
whether
to
of
relationship
data
may
and
structures
most quickly
depending
This
GM
K-car,
the
line,
new technology more
market
timing
transfer
ongoing
products
their
and
Thus,
past
a
introduce
on
implications
the
to
an
products
car
126).
Firms do not need to introduce totally new technology
should
they
organizational
from
projects.
place
While the
sales.
PP,
1993:
1,
was competitive
There could be a case, for example, where a new project
coordination.
multiple
and
well
new product development,
in
number of
the
new products throughout
several
for
the
strategy.
but
This product
1980.
in
November
new compact
helped
in
reduce
to
1980s.
sourcing
corporate-wide
technology
this
product,
addition
In
the
than before (Newsweek,
lines
become old and declined markedly
of exploiting
trying
economies of
possible
all
same platform technologies and designs with some
the
the
strategy
this
first
now
is
It
new platform technology and design
a
advantage of
taking
Chrysler developed and introduced a
hand,
other
the
leverage
to
been
not
manufacturing).
among more product
modifications
On
(or
and
builds
it
and has
products
different
scope
in
importance of these different perspectives.
the
illustrate
types
of
dimensions
and
the
of
multi-project
timing
strategies
strategies
new products introduced by
of
and
design
discusses
strategy:
transfers.
hypotheses
and market growth
17
the
extent
The paper
regarding
performance.
worldwide auto manufacturers
of
first
the
Second,
between
1980 and
1991,
more often
utilized
have
Firms
development.
Figure
discussing
A Typology
Framework:
3
various
order
In
of changes,
extent
typology covers
mutually
of the
development projects
in
the
analysis
new
car
in
we
study,
this
suspension
and
firewall
a
automobile because the platform
components,
vehicle's
engine/transmission
"core"
widely
The
size.
into
on inter-project linkages.
four
types,
depending on
This
projects,
are
and these four types
A
shared
functionality
by people
of
and
rocker
Platform
design,
design
strategy
vehicle
the
for
a
in
the
affects
the
defines
It
the
basic
structure,
this
perspective,
from
the
of the
considered
the
of
rest
and
type
drive-train
is
of
architecture
characteristics
body
be
to
specific
platform
sophistication
one of the key areas
in
of
the
well
as
design
also
determines
whole product.
to
In
the
general
addition,
level
platform
the
is
industry.
of
design
technology
is
which most automobile manufacturers compete as they introduce new
and higher levels of performance.
resources are required
by researchers studying the
as
industry,
to
platform primarily consists of floor panels, a
panels.
significantly
including
the
This notion of the platform as the core sub-system of the automobile
sub-system.
selection
designs
strategies.
However, the same framework can be applied
development projects.
system,
on
focus
major components of most system products.
the
new product
in
base design, and the timing of design transfer.
new product development
of
used
strategies
exclusive.
For
platform
types
all
strategy.
complicated patterns of different multi-project
product
sources
transfer"
Strategy
proposes a multi-project strategy typology which focuses
1
design
and limitations of the study.
multi-project
for
"rapid
a
call
Multi-Project
for
analyze
to
what we
implications
alternatives
typology categorizes new
This
the
one type of strategy:
we conclude by
Finally,
(measured by market share growth)
paper argues that high performers
this
Not surprisingly, more financial and engineering
develop a new platform design than any other components with the
possible exception of a totally
new
engine.
Figure
Typology of the Project Strategy on
1
Inter-Project Linkages
New Product Introduction
-Time
New Design
Type 1:
Daagn Aga (Yr.hO
Type 2: Rapid
^
Desigji Transfer
->
•*
On-going Other Project
^—
-<
Type 3: Sequential Design Transfer
Past Project (Other Product Line)
New
Project
Type 4: Design Modification
Deagn Ag«
Note:
the
Design age
when
time
the
is
the age of the core design used
new product
The extent of change required
(e.g.,
platform
design)
New
product
projects
preexisting
base
design
distinction
between
difference
between
Ettlie,
et
al.,
is
develop
that
source
product,
or the
as rapid
Thus,
the
design
and
"radical"
down
transfer
timing:
new
project's
direct
transfer, sequential
has
determines
project
four
platforms
their
the
the
as
project,
whether
other
three
and
into
three
either
an
types
1991).
types,
measured
multi-project
at
its
ongoing
(Dewar
In
other
types,
and three variations of the enhanced design strategy.
our
and
The
strategy.
similar
to
Dutton,
framework,
a
the
1986;
however,
project,
an
existing
other
These three types are labeled here
transfer, and design
strategy
conceptually
is
project.
without
scratch
design
design
core
depending on the location of the base
predecessor product.
design
new
type,
innovations
Cooper,
from
primarily
first
"incremental"
Kleinschmidt
and
typology
new
a
categorized
are
incremental changes are broken
design
in
by a new
introduced.
newly developed or transferred and modified from another
new design and
1984;
is
(Yr)
modification,
including
the
respectively.
new design
strategy
new
In the first type,
with
interaction
other
design,
is
the
firm.
within
projects
low
relatively
there
Members
on creating a new technology and design.
concentrate
should
requirements
be
among
highest
the
new design
of the
While the
because
four
the
relatedness
technological
may
project
engineering task
project's
design
the
or
to
new and few
is
components are shared with other projects or carried over from a predecessor product, both
is
most appropriate for incorporating the
many
without placing
projects
and share a core design from other projects
transfer
In the second type, rapid
within the firm.
and design into a new product
technology
latest
on the development team.
restrictions
The next two types of
This type of project
and design constraints are low.
other projects
with
coordination costs
design
new
transfer, a
project begins to transfer a
core design from a base project before the base project has completed
two years of platform completion, as discussed further
about
within
(generally,
~
These two projects - the new project and the base project
section).
chronologically;
while
project
because:
coordination
costly
potentially
design
the
some
(1)
downstream project needs
the
(2)
design engineering
its
is
under
still
of
incorporate
to
development
a
relatively
or
require extensive and
overlap
phases
development
the
next
the
in
from
design
and
new;
base
the
mutual
(3)
adjustments in design between the two projects are possible and likely.
The
third
type,
new model
after
the
coordination
this
design
addition,
may
concurrent
not
be
high
in
on
design-task
sharing
differences
Thompson's
distinction
latter
also
between
requires
in
sequential
design
no
longer
are
compared
effective,
rapid
design
possible,
to
rapid
design
and
sequential
design
technology"
"long-linked
and
adjustments
transfer
and
higher
"intensive
coordination
compared
to
transfer.
In
forcing
mutual
new
the
This type of
transfer,
This
is
in
because
transfers
mutual adjustments are not possible.
rapid
mutual
as
old
relatively
already
is
design
core
the
uses
a
inter-project
the base core design from an older product.
and
between
project
developed,
design
core
the
or
efficient
hypothetical
the
be
may
constraints
transferred
being
new
a
to
project
of
type
this
ongoing
"off-the-shelf,"
When
is
Because
finished.
is
is
model
accommodate elements of
project to
transfer
while a base
between projects
adjustments
being
design
the
that
nor needed.
possible
however,
transferred
design
existing
neither
is
manner,
designs
an
reuses
basically
development
model's
base
model
transfer, transfers a design from a base
design
sequential
because
discussion
partially
based
technology,"
costs
of
on
where
(Thompson,
1967).
The
last
type,
design
modification, refers to a new product project that develops a
core design directly based on that of a predecessor product.
need
design
any
of
inter-project
the
coordination
predecessor
product
either,
(i.e.,
but
the
has
current
to
This type of project does not
consider
model).
constraints
from
the
The difference between
core
the
design modification and the
sequential
and
definition,
application.
its
not have to be
In
than
less
may
modifications
this
can
replacement
while
line,
which transfers a core design
sequential
that
is
design
a
Design
design transfer.
Another difference by definition
lines.
base design
of the
from the base design does
extent of modification
the
add a new product
to
source
the
be easier than a sequential design transfer,
used
be
thus
is
of rapid design transfer or sequential
that
between different product
transfer
design transfer
modification
design
only
is
for
projects.
One
of the
useful
each strategy type,
which
is
that
age of the core design
the
is
typology
of this
features
it
(i.e.,
determines
platform)
design
the
new
a
age of
project
uses.
For example, the design age of a new product that uses a core design that was originally
introduced to the market 10 years ago by the firm
age
the product
new product and
of the
leveraged by
use
For example,
design
base product,
other
In
how
age
product
design
design
cycle
life
within
the
in
time between the
original
design on which
any analysis of the timing
to
transfer,
age
is
transfer
or
measurement
a
of
same product
its
is
predecessor
the
reflects
line.
is
utilizing
the
time
transfer
a
design
the
transfer
strategy
strategy
is
modification
basic
between
new product
a
The
transfer.
The
model'.
design
differentiates
to
strategy
the
since
the
to
transfer
strategy
either
strategy,
passed
has
that
from a base project
transferred
The design age of
new design
using the
design
sequential
new design
that
is
firm.
new product
a
design
sequential
central
is
design
1,
measures how quickly a new platform design
it
of
new product using
of a
modification
scratch
4
design
quickly the original
design
the
or
age
of the
Figure
in
which was developed as an original new design, was introduced
words,
rapid
either
design
the
transfer
the design age
multiple projects
in
introduction
first
because
strategy
transfer
its
the
The concept of
based.
is
inter-project
rapid
As shown
10 years.
determined for each multi-project strategy type by the difference
is
introduction
of
is
market.
strategies,
by
determined
is
a
new
is
the
The
project.
same
as
the
concept of the design age for the
two generations
of
products
for
develops a core design from
that
zero.
Hypothesis: Impact on Market Performance
There
the
two
are
multi-project
new
age of
rate
is
strategy:
as
number of product
If
a
new product
the
output
dimensions
introduction
rate
products a firm actually introduces to the market.
defined
new product
modifications),
company-level
critical
the
a
offerings
is
design
of
ratio
itself
age
a
in
a
is
the
number of new
base
year.
product
that
and
are
the
closely
average
related
core
to
design
The new product introduction
introductions
The average core design age
adjusted
is
the
by
the
average of
design modification of a second, earlier modification (or a string of
found by going back to the most recent original design.
10
new
platform design ages of these
hypothesized
firms
that
rate)
with newer designs
gain
more
would
(lower average core design age)
market share.
in
new product
affect both the
A number
of
believed
provided
or
possible
it
A
firm
more
segments or by enabling each product
may
be
important
particularly
conditions seem
should
strategies
focus
to
introduction
rate
improved ones more quickly,
with
desired
if
(Miller,
1988;
may
enable
of
market
Broader product lines
covering
by
introductions
wider
a
more effectively on
range
market niches
specific
1988).
impact of the new product introduction rate on market performance
the
addition,
In
effectively
Bower and Hout,
1986;
1986; Kotler,
(Bagozzi,
new product
higher
Kekre and Srinivasan, 1990).
consumer needs
meet
to
product
frequent
more quickly than competitors,
lines
1989;
products
multi-project
different
that
existing products
replace
to
broaden their product
to
Fujimoto and Sheriff,
a
firm
a
for
new
these
across
that
evidence
have a positive influence on market share growth.
makes
we
introduction rate and the average platform design age.
have
studies
we
addition,
In
research,
this
more new products (higher new product introduction
introduce
that
When we began
products for each firm.
in
such
industries
two
where
automobiles
as
general
hold^:
to
1)
technology improves steadily in small increments, instead of through radical
improvements only once a while, and marginal superiority is the basis for product
and
competition in the marketplace;
2)
customer
expectations
introduction,
on
more
financial
may
reflect
in
want
save
introduction
to
and
design
on
rate,
generally
requires
Thus,
may
it
introduction
^
rate
quality
their
to
be
and
introduction
resources.
Otherwise,
existing
lead
a
to
reasonable
extensively
poorly
investments
decrease
and
the
still
project
for
a
that
firm
maintain
new design
suffer
If
new
from
firms
product
each project and carry over
in
more new components
(Clark
pursues
and
a
Fujimoto,
high
set
1991).
new product
strategy.
Fujimoto (1989) also discussed the world car market using a similar
1 1
introductions
1992).
high
a
develops
that
that
(Crawford,
resources
need to invest
new-product
products
in
market
the
and
engineering
choice
utilize
in
frequent
result
usually
firms
rate,
new components
A
designs.
time
and
efforts
perform
resource
may have
of
new product
development
more
not
the
engineering
they
portions
substantial
increase
incomplete
problems
to
addition
in
fragmented and change at a rapid pace, predicated by
and social values; freshness in styling and model
to performance functionality, has a significant influence
sales.
order
In
are
trends
fashion
current
of assumptions.
over
projects
words,
other
In
time
make
to
development,
product
standardized
One of
competitiveness.
purposes
the
engineering
assemble
factories
(Cusumano,
and
financial
their
how
to
components repeatedly
existing
However,
1991).
firms
may
introductions
impose constraints on introducing new designs for other components.
or
improve
new technologies and designs among
of
transfer
newness
overall
the
offerings.
Therefore,
may depend
introduced
the
One
them
introduce
new component
into
a
may
individual
product
lines
their
limited
across
designs are
of
new
explored
has
either
technology
actually
multiple
product
on
transfer
firm's
market
a
new products
separately.
Firms
usually
and
financial
engineering
Although
been
in
by
quickly
or
related
is
the
recent
extensively
conceptually
leverage
level
is
product
line,
but
single
a
into
corporate
cannot
do
They
can
best
them
transferring
and
instead
speed
to
the
years
studied,
empirically
a
transferring
speed to
use
"speed
in
quickly
existing
and
these
technologies
and
the
designs
core
market of a single new
that
technology
has
at
rate
across
product
rarely
been
Speed
leverage".
new product development
of
their
technologies
new
the
benchmark
critical
is
speed
the
in
to
new
utilize
while
of
all
consistently
this
resources.
Firms
not
market segments as quickly as
different
by developing new and unique designs for
this
projects
designs
the
at
The measurement of average core design age captures both
fresh.
projects.
development
may
projects
firm's
rapid
the
contrast,
average core design age of
targeting
lines
design development and
core
multiple
achieve
multiple
still
design
of
the
from present and past projects.
technologies
designs
impact
technologies and
of product
set
Firms
of
of a
primary goals of new product developments
possible.
because
The reuse of an
By
multiple
sophistication
some extent on
to
meet
to
is
marketplace and then used as the basis for design transfers.
of the
only to introduce
technological
negative
the
competitiveness
into
and
components
Reuse of an old core design as a base may also
with this objective.
conflict
from
impact on market
customer tastes and needs with new technologies and designs.
in
old design
reuse
use old
new
in
products
a negative
new product
of frequent
multiple
in
resources
different
if
may have
such repeated use of the same old designs
too often,
changes
similar
use
to
most of
the
modules.
or
parts
may want
firms
of
corporate
the
level.
Automobile
products
for
for
implied
some of
new
performing
that,
may
order
in
successful
the
components
manufacturers
successful
in
market
on older designs than
without relying
example,
designs,
firms
(Clark,
also
manufacturers
Japanese
1989).
have
in
to
avoid
to
their
a
Our
tradeoff
study
12
this
develop
One of
between
more
Clark's
new
findings,
new designs and reused
depended more on outside suppliers
explores
strategies
mitigate
should
competitors.
manufacturers
multi-project
order
growth
share
that
tradeoff.
the
differ
We
idea
from
can
that
successful
of
low
summarize
our
those
from
arguments
the
above
in
strategy
types,
average
multi-project
different
two hypotheses regarding the relationship among
discussion
design
core
and market share growth performance, as exhibited
rate,
new product
age,
Figure
in
introduction
2.
Hypotheses on Inter-project Types
Figure 2
New
"Rapid
Design
"New Design'
(Design age: Low)
Transfer"
Market Share
Growth
Average
Core-Design
Age
"Sequential
"Design
Old
Design
Modification"
(Design age: High)
Transfer"
High
Low
New Product
firms
First,
higher
that
new product
more new products than
develop
introduction
Introduction Rate
Second,
average core design age) should increase market share.
new product
a firm
projects,
allows
a
strategies
the
quick
An
new.
introduction
However,
it
results
the
rapid
design
in
of
a
be
among
of older
by
types
strategy
that
new
a
technologies
the
use
average core design age but
may have
a negative
the
case,
(i.e.,
have a low
order both to increase the
in
core
while
transfer
in
age
design
product
the
or
design
of
designs
using
still
is
new
the
This
among
relatively
transfer
design
sequential
developing more
sharing
into
a
a
new products
multiple
projects.
transfer
design
sequential
product than those
than
products using
transfer.
extensive
this
average
projects
design
rapid
the
recognized
incorporation
multiple
hand,
In
low
with a greater advantage
firms
multi-project
should
design
On
transfer
usage
extensive
two
maintain
have
(i.e.,
should extensively choose to follow the rapid design transfer strategy.
may provide
other
and
rate
designs
older
reintroducing
without
rate)
competitors
their
other
firms
may
tend
to
focus
of
their
new design
impact on the
financial
13
strategy
may
new product
result
in
a
low
introduction rate.
and engineering resources on a limited
number of new products, without reusing
multiple
across
This
projects.
product portfolio.
its
in
terms
an
strategy,
individual
project
strategy
this
introduction
or
rate
However,
in
would be
the
line
the
to
help a firm
multiple
the
product
design
improve or expand
advantageous either
Under
When
lines.
modification
this
only
an
seems
strategy
we hypothesized
strategy,
predicting a
for
least
at
not
is
market
the
slowly over multiple generations of
relatively
effective
preserving
in
framework of the multi-project
least
same components
the
average core design age.
the
considered,
is
effective
little
among
leveraged
not
is
product
a
for
be effective.
that
it
sharing
or
on design modification
may be enhanced
design
existing
same product, and
the
to
new product
of the
be
but do
line,
focusing
Finally,
may
strategy
competitiveness of an individual product
designs
existing
growth
firm's
rate
in
sales.
The model
analyses
of the
Figure 3
Figure
in
relationships
Analytical
3
summarizes
among
four
these
-
New
which
we
use
in
regression
constructs.
Model
New
Multi-project Strategy
hypotheses,
these
Type
Product
Introduction Rate
Corporate-level
Market Performance
(Market Share
Design
-
Rapid Design Transfer
-
Sequential Design Transfer
-
Design Modification
Growth
Average Core
Design Age
In
Revenue)
*1: This relationship is mostly determined by the definition of the multi-project strategy type and
the core design age as shown in Figure 1. Therefore, these two variables are not analyzed in the
same regression models.
Sample
5
Characteristics
The sample
world,
Ford,
including
Chrysler),
Europe,
products
and
the
to
this
study covers
the
Automohil
Fiat
international
according
Revue,
VW
VAG:
in
the
largest
and nine European producers (VAG,
to
our
Group,
market,
Volvo)^.
definition
of
and
Fiat
an
annually
published
passenger car manufacturers
the
Mercedes-Benz,
U.S.,
distinctive
in
Swiss
the
BMW,
in
Europe, and
Opel,
210 new car
total,
Japan,
between
new products (explained
industry
industry
Ford of
later
14
1980
in
this
were primarily collected from
journal
that
covers
introduction
PSA: Peugeot and Citroen; Fiat Group: Fiat and Lancia.
Alfa Romeo
Group because it became a part of the Fiat Group in November 1986.
Audi;
the
in
Mazda, Mitsubishi), three U.S.. (GM,
These firms introduced,
including
Data on new product development
section).
17
Japanese (Toyota, Nissan, Honda,
PSA, Renault,
1991,
included
five
in
Measurements
and
is
not
and design features
dates
new
all
firms
these
in
with
Interviews
worldwide''.
products
car
30 project managers
and
engineers
130
approximately
for
detail
in
worldwide were also
conducted to develop our analytical framework.
Data were divided
and
1988,
Among
introduced no
65
combinations,
The new product
company-level
introduction
by the
periods
three-year
firms
when one firm
products
during
offerings
develops
Japan,
and include
exceptions
We
exterior
*
We
NAVl.
of
styling,
also
as
referred
and Car
in
These resulted
and
period,
all
primary markets
a total of
in
For example, this ratio
base year.
has
firm
case,
either
originally
that
new product
the
is
has
same
the
develops
offerings
product
six
other
the
in
each manufacturer during each
for
three
four
introduction
for
new
product
rate
is
world, including North America, Europe, and
the
major new car products introduced into any of these markets with the
all
a
in
firms
three
number of new product introductions divided
of the
the
because
68
New Product
was calculated
originally
two new products;
and
off-line"
"special
defined
that
certain
a
Our data cover
0.5.
used
makes
periods
time
1986-
1983-1985,
strategies^.
rate
ratio
by the number of product offerings
two
four
not
are
three
Product Introduction Rate and Definition of a
of the
and
products during one of the four time periods.
describing
points
data
New
new
68
the
firms
17
1980-1982,
periods:
time
three-year
The combination of
1989-1991.
combinations.
four
into
new product
opposed
to
a
to
as
"externally-developed"
a
product
car
newly introduced with mostly new
with
a
minor
automobile magazines including Motor
Stvlin?
.
as
well
as
a
weekly
cars*.
industry
face-lift
or
a
variation
interior
that
and
consists
—
Trend Car and Driver. Q^r Graphic,
for detailed
Automobile
l^(ws,
.
journal.
on projects.
such as
chose the scheme of four three-year periods because we believe that a longer interval
to
firms
allow
would
period
six-year
two six-year periods may create a causality problem since a
choose a product strategy directly reflecting their market performance within the same period. A
aggregate
longer period scheme may also weaken the impact of distinctive strategies, because
information
^
We
performance data are used
dynamic
multi-project
this
in
study.
and is not
not introduce
strategy
shorter period such as two years is too short to capture a
For
conceptually appropriate for this research framework.
any new products or introduced only one product even
conducted a sensitivity test using two additional division
A
example, many firms did
during the 3-year periods. Therefore, we
schemes, including three 4-year periods and two 6-year periods. We also conducted sensitivity tests
Results from chese sensitivity tests
using data points without any one of the four 3-year periods.
will discuss later.
we
which
scheme,
division
this
with
similar
results
to
provided us
^
as the Toyota Sera, the Dodge
such
products
off-line"
"special
we
count
do not
In this research,
Zl, whose production volume is approximately
Viper, the Honda NSX, the Nissan PAO, or the
0.5% or less of a firm's total car production volume, because these products are not often developed
with the same level of production preparation or development standards as other mass-production
rather than
models.
In addition, these models often target symbolic effects such as a firm's image
BMW
New products whose platforms are primarily developed externally are also excluded.
income.
For example, the 1989 Mazda Carol and the 1987 Ford Probe were excluded from this study because
was
the platform of the 1989 Mazda Carol was developed by Suzuki and that of the 1987 Ford Probe
developed by Mazda.
sales
15
of
minor
cosmetic
modifications^.
body and styling types
Additional
models are not counted as new products
existing
for
car
Product variations designed within a single
either.
project led by a single project manager, such as the Taurus and the Sable at Ford, or product
developed
variations
within
multi-brand
a
(Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Supreme,
new
only one
This
analysis
minor
of
developed
together
example,
this
one
Most new
products,
and
journals
two
separate
number
car
than
body
types
projects
new
such
as
and
Taurus
mentioned
of
the
variations
for
were
variations
critical
is
projects
the
styling
or
to
this
the
fact
in
study.
For
of
their
nature
the
and
inter-project
management
the
more new
or
of
magazines
car
rather
multiple
as
or
project
total
level,
whether
Therefore,
the
affects
industry
such
variations
within
interrelationships.
platform
the
at
channels.
sales
in
project
Buick Regal and Chevrolet Lumina) are counted as
on the management of multi-project strategy and
focuses
interactions
development
discussed
GMIO
Motors
General
the
like
product*.
organizational
different
project
openly
are
Sable,
earlier.
Average Platform (Core) Design Age
The platform design age
designs
without
this
a
as
projects
measured
is
product and
when
an
of
average
1980 and
new product
all
products
by
the
difference
a
first
firm
Figure
in
in
time
between
developed.
introduced
that
develop new platform
Again
1.
we
characterize
The platform design age
scheme.
on platforms from
based
base product was
new products
typology
our
projects
other
the
projects
or
introduction
direct
their
of
for
the
new
The average platform design age
during
each
three
year
period
is
between
1991.
Multi-project
Strategy
order
In
developed
changes
the
under
strategy
develop new
predecessors
for
any preceding base design as defined
new design
that
zero
is
or
Major
determine
to
transferred
platform
in
Types
from
design
components
whether
a
the
platform
of
preceding
product,
we assigned
a
certain
new
points
project
to
the
was newly
extent
between the new product and preceding products similar
to
of
the
include doors, fenders, pillars, a roof, bumpers, a
A new
door, a front grill, and exterior moldings.
exterior styling means that all of these components are new.
The same method is also applied to
the change in interior stylings.
In the automobile industry, particularly in Japan and Europe, it is
usually clear whether a new product is actually a "new product" or "face-lift product."
For example,
in Japan, industry people (and customers) clearly distinguish these two by referring to these as a
"major-change" project and "minor-change" project, respectively.
windshield,
Some
a
hood,
a
for
trunk
exterior
lid,
a
styling
hatchback
examples are the Camaro and the Firebird variations developed under GM's 1981 Fwhich are counted as one new product.
At Toyota, variations developed by a single
project, the 1989 Celica project, include the Celica, the Carina ED, and the Corona Exiv, and are
counted as one new product.
car
other
project,
16
new
based
product,
of
New
product
new
identify
projects
newly
that
front-wheel-drive,
and others
compact
wishbone
double
suspension systems during
platform
designs
Among
product
on
based
product
Appendix
(see
1
develop
or
platform
new design
Some new
systems.
design
To
from
an
design
of
several
reasons.
2.0
projects
or
new
major
incorporate
such major changes, completely new
of
descriptions
for
platform,
the
which
those
develop
model are categorized
predecessor
and
the
earlier,
new
a
design
as
other
for
between
distinction
which
lag,
of the
introduction
the
new
the
new product
our
and
from
the
strategies
new product development
survey data,
project
platform
managers
design
much
key
transfer
same
the
is
rapid
the
as
with
of
(See
time lag
that
This
is
two-year
Nobeoka,
completed
differentiates
point
cutoff
between multiple projects
also
a
platform
According
within
is
used
that
inter-project
1993).
design
platform
project
different
to
between a
usually
in
for
this
longer than
is
conceptually
research
this
did
coordination
or
whether overlap
is
respect
projects
transfer
factor
We
design.
former
the
from a base
transfer
the
the
if
overlap
project.
part
base
that
because
a
base
another
survey
not
project,
design
questionnaire
of
is
definition,
sequential
project
results
usually
when
design transfers
rapid
the
there
In
from
transfer
by
a
begins.
latter
between
As defined
Our interviews with engineers revealed
product project
separate
multi-link
as
1
by the transfer time
as
of
years
approximately two years, then
in
to
Appendix
existing
transfers.
determined
is
new
occurred within
supported
was easy
it
age.
categorized
design
preceding
were changed from rear-wheel-drive
products
(See
period.)
this
derived
sequential
the
cases,
new suspension technologies such
introduced
platform
the
project
before
many
In
strategy.
any
without
designs
and are based on the platform designs are categorized as either rapid design
design
We
platform
required.
and sequential transfers
exists
the
as
platform design that
in
design
suspension
the
well
as
Those which shared platform designs with any preceding projects
lines
transfers
are
projects
modifications.
rapid
track
because firms often adopted new technologies for platform designs
designs
during this period (1980-1991).
base
and
structure,
base design are categorized as following a
to
and
wheelbase
the
in
point scheme).
the
for
under-body
panels,
floor
changes
These measurements cover the extent of changes
suspedsion design.
consist
on
primarily
our
to
years
2.0
is
always associated with interactions between a base project and a new project.
Those projects
whose
some
transfer
lag
is
between
2.0
years
and
3.0
show mixed
years
have interactions with a base project and some do not.
All
projects
results;
that
are
projects
delayed from a
base project by 3.0 years or longer do not have any interactions with the base project.
figure
2.0
years
is
also
reasonable
because
it
17
is
close
to
the
midway
point
(2.25
years)
The
for
average
the
time
lead
Fujimoto (1991: 73).
using
development
car
we
Nevertheless,
also
(4.52
tested
the
years)
sensitivity
by
calculated
as
and
Clark
of the 2.0-year division by
and 2.5 years as cutoff points, and discuss these
years
1.5
new
for
results
later.
Usage of Different Multi-project Strategies (%)
We
measured
of each
percentage
usage
of
multi-project
strategy
firm during a three-year period.
example
when
both
design
rapid
the
is
it
analyzed
variables
type
example,
For,
in
of
different
conjunction
of
out
all
firm
a
if
period
this
multi-project
with the
considered
generally
are
during
strategy
transfer
usage
implies,
multi-project
new
determining
by
strategies
products
car
by a
introduced
new
introduces ten
the
products during
and three new products are categorized as rapid design transfers, usage
a three-year period
of
different
calculated
is
strategies
new product
is
as
our analyses,
In
rate.
this
meaningful
particularly
introduction
As
0.30.
together.
Market Share Change
Market share was calculated using estimates of revenues for each product
America,
Japan,
production
for
from a single
and
each
Europe.
product by
source.
Motor
Manufacturers Association),
those in
in
the
the
U.S.
U.S.
This
to
an
average
Vehicle
prices
the end of the
This
minimizes
total
price.
Statistics
1991
in
prices^.
were estimated by
with respect to size and equipment level.
company's share of
sales
maintain consistency.
market, adjusted to
market,
was calculated by multiplying the
revenue
industry
their
We
Major
collected
The average
sales
total
unit
production
data
(Japan
Countries
prices
Automobile
we used were
For products not available for purchase
equivalent products
Market share change
revenues
the
North
in
is
in
the
the percentage
from the beginning of one
U.S.
market
change
three-year
in
period
a
to
same period.
methodology is similar to using purchasing power parity rather than
the impact of changing exchange rates on the market-share data.
important for the Japanese
time periods studied.
firms,
since
the
ratio
18
of
the
yen
has
increased
exchange
rates, and
This is particularly
dramatically during the
Table
New
1
Summary
of Performance and Strategy Variables
Product Introduction Rate
-
#
# of new products during a 3-year period, divided by
of product offerings in the beginning of the first
year of the period.
A new product includes all model variations
developed within a single project.
A new product has new interior and exterior
Additional variation projects such as new
stylings.
-
body
counted
not
are
stylings
or
types
new
as
products.
-
"Special
products
off-line"
as
new
all
new
The
coimted
not
are
products.
Average Platform Design Age
(years)
-
An
average
products
design
platform
of
during
introduced
platform design age
a
defined
is
ages
time passed since a
was originally
as
each new product
developed and introduced (see Figure
uses
platform
Usage of Multi-project
(in
Multi-project
New
strategies
-
#
of
new products using each
1).
strategy
multi-project
during a 3-year period, divided by the total number of
new products introduced during the 3-year period.
percentage)
strategy
New
Design
Rapid Design Transfer
products that develop a
New
Sequential
Design
Transfer
platform.
occurs
that use a platform a project for a
Transfer
product line originally developed.
within 2 years of the introduction of the
product
that
New
occurs
least
base
product.
New
products
earlier
use
that
product
at
develops
originally
products
separate
Modification
new
products
separate
Design
for
period.
3-year
years
2
use
that
generation)
a
platform
originally
line
of
after
a
the
platform.
the
a
project
the
platform
a
a
of
the
predecessor
(an
introduction
same product
for
Transfer
developed.
line
originally
developed.
Market Share Change
(percentage)
Percentage change
in
the
beginning of each
the
period.
19
(revenue in $) from
three-year period to the end of
market share
^^^^^^^^^
Examples of Different Multi-project
The
various
(1)
how
illustrate
according
manufacturers
four
the
to
Toyota
1987,
Honda
and
The typology scheme
respectively.
categorized
multi-project
introduced
from
products
different
strategies.
in
of
variations
hatchback),
Levin
the
Corolla
the
(3-door
include
Among
hatchback), and the Trueno (3-door coupe).
exterior
stylings,
some of
the
Corolla
series
distinctive
from
different
new
a
as
product
product
because
platform
design,
completely
components.
styling
completely
two
and
product.
Automobil
sedan),
previous
Despite
these
counts
earlier
the
Other
stylings.
within
Corolla
variations,
Cielo
(5-door
Revue (1989) describes
stylings
interior
variations
of
a
one
as
With respect
project.
this
definition
the
to
new Corolla
chassis design of the
the
share
variations
the
product
Corolla
the
new Corolla
the
(3-door
scheme counts
our
series,
extensive
all
FX
the
sedan),
them, there are four completely separate
interior
the
of
were developed
all
(4-door
Because these exterior body stylings and
any
discussed
separate
Civic,
1987 Corolla as a project
the
(4-door
Sprinter
the
new
the
1987 Civic as a new design strategy.
Corolla
the
and
Corolla
study categorizes
this
coupe),
new
the
followed the design modification strategy and the
Product
are
we
Design Modification
In
that
examples
following
strategies
as
follows:
"Integral body, from and rear independent suspension with McPherson struts, front
lower A-arm, rear parallel control arm and trailing arm, front antiroll bars, some
models also rear antiroll bars. "(p. 554)
The suspension
Revue
Automobil
system
(1987), and
Styling (1987, volume 59,
p.
the
in
previous
identical
is
Corolla,
this
to
1983
the
Corolla,
new 1987
description for the
59) also explains that "as
the
before,
described
is
suspension
by L-shape
lower arms and McPherson strut at the front, with parallel arm struts at the rear.
rigidity
at
Therefore,
the front
the
categorized as
criteria
change
been
has
increased
suspension
in
"suspension
system
categorization
wheelbase
and
scheme
track
in
the
respectively).
Because
front
track
the
the
of
for
moving
explained
both
the
new Corolla and
wheelbase/track,
it
is
in
1983
products
the
that
is
old
its
in
Corolla
obvious
panels,
we
referred
(2430
mm
and
the
is
using the
Corolla.
the
"
according to the
new
shared
that
model
the
and
same
Lateral
forward...
previous
floor
Appendix,
the
the
of
mm
40
modified"
change
Corolla
are
relatively
20
the
to
pivot
front
same, but the design
as
both
the
new Corolla from
With respect
1.
study
dimensions
wheelbase and
system and the same
this
of the
is
described in the Appendix
by
Car
Corolla.
is
in
to
1430
the
The
mm,
same suspension
new Corolla used
the
of the
platform
categorized as
new
of the
we had
above,
discussed
as
Therefore,
1983 Corolla.
the
the
1987 Corolla was 4.0 years
New
in
the platform
the
wide
has
also
project
because
is
Using the
was actually newly developed
able to determine that the platform design age of
we were
1987 when
CR-X
it
was introduced.
all
variations
(3-door coupe),
which
variations,
and three different wheelbases.
All
include
of these
CR-X, had been developed
An
categorization and notes
same project
as
article
the
to
CR-X, and
the
the
body
different
counted as one product
are
variations
one of the variations, such as
If
categorized
(Volume 61, 11/1987,
Styling
(3-door
were
Shuttle
78)
p.
it
as
a rapid
confirmed our
developed within
all
manager Hiroh Watanabe.
led by project
With respect
Civic,
the
that
Car
Civic
the
completely
three
we would have
a separate project,
in
including
and the Shuttle (5-door hatchback).
of them were developed by a single project team.
design transfer project.
the
project
Design
hatchback and 4-door sedan), the
stylings
was originally developed.
platform
the
that
The new 1987 Civic project developed product
This
new Corolla
the
order to determine the platform design age
In
we found
May
Therefore,
base.
when
to find out
for
(2)
a
as
least
at
design-modification project.
a
Corolla,
same method
Corolla
old
and the
systems
suspension
chassis
of
the
previous
Revue (1984 and 1989) explains
1983 Civic, and the 1987 Civic, Automobil
Civic,
the
as follows:
body; front independent suspension with McPherson struts,
rear
front lower A-arm and torsion bar spring, some models with antiroll bars;
models
trailing arm, torsion beam axle and Panhard rod with strut, semi-rigid, some
"1983
with
Integral
Civic:
antiroll
(1984, p. 300)
bars."
"1987 Civic: Integral body; all-round independent suspension with coil springs and
adjustable shock absorbers, front upper A-arm, lower control arm and coaxial
rear trailing arms, swinging arm, with upper and lower control arms.
tension struts;
Some models with front and/or rear antiroll bars." (1989, p. 313)
air
The suspension system
types,
and
that
in
in
old Civic
the
is
variation of semi-independent torsion
new system compared
Honda.
had
a
to
either
new
the
the
a
Civic
of
variation
bar
types
is
in
McPherson
the
rear.
double-wishbone
of four-wheel
a variation
strut
types
the
in
front
and a
The new Civic has a completely
1983 Civic or any other existing designs
at
that
time
in
This platform was also technically innovative because no other products of this size
double-wishbone
sedan and
the
The difference
old
in
type
Civic
4-door
both the
the floor panels for the
suspension.
new
sedan
are
The wheelbase/track
2450/1400
mm
for
the
and 2500/1450
new Civic 4-door
mm,
respectively.
wheelbase and track of the new and the old Civic indicates that
Civic are also new.
21
Therefore, the
new Civic
is
categorized as a
new product under
new design
the
strategy.
platform
Its
age
design
as
defined
Thirteen
months
zero,
is
earlier.
(3)
Rapid Design Transfer
May
In
the
earlier,
1987
Civic,
line,
was developed
double-wishbone
four-wheel
the
new product
a
above,
discussed
as
of
variation
a
utilizing
Honda introduced
1988
the
Concerto.
as
a
completely new platform,
The Concerto
suspension.
project
and the Civic project were organizationally separate and were managed by different project
The Concerto
managers.
door
hatchback).
sedan's
to
one
the
wheelbase
Concerto's
front
and
Exterior
from any variations of the
identical
track
mm
mm, 50
identical
is
However,
the
to
the
(
Concerto
completely
are
5-
sedan and
(4-door
different
suspension system of the Concerto
the
described above
Civic
2550
is
of
stylings
interior
1987 Civic.
the
in
developed two different body types
project
Revue
Automobil
longer
than
Civic
sedan.
that
of
The Concerto
1990).
Civic
the
sedan,
while
the
that
the
we concluded
Therefore,
is
Concerto project shared the same platform as the Civic and stretched the wheelbase by 50
mm, which may
have required a modification
Concerto was introduced only
project
as
following
300ZX
novel
rapid
the
months
design
the
after
transfer
with
new
completely
a
Revue (1989) describes
Because the
one of the Civic's floor panels.
we
Civic project,
categorized the Concerto
strategy.
as a replacement for an existing sports car, the
platform
Automobil
13
to
four-wheel
The 300ZX employed
280ZX.
multi-link
which
system,
suspension
a
as follows:
round multiple arm independent suspension with coil springs
damper, front lower control arm with tension strut, top semitrailing arm, articulating arm, rear lower A-arm, axial strut, lower single control
arm and diagonal struts, antiroll bar front and rear"(p. 437).
"Integral
body;
and co-axial
The 300ZX
all
telescopic
project
is
an example of a
Nissan introduced the new Skyline
The Skyline and
2-door coupe.
in
new product following
the
March 1989, which included both
300ZX were developed by two
the
new
design strategy.
separate
projects:
Skyline was developed by a project led by project manager Shinichiro Sakurai
July
1989, vol. 71,
Katsuo
Yamada
employed
transferred
the
the
the
p.
(
exact
Skyline project
.
October
1989,
p.
same chassis specifications
platform
(
Car
the
Styling
.
and the 300ZX was developed by a project led by project manager
38),
N A VI
sedan and a
a 4-door
17).
as
Though
that
of the
separate
300ZX.
projects,
as
a
rapid
22
design transfer.
Skyline
The Skyline project
from the 300ZX with the time lag of only three months.
was categorized
the
Therefore,
By comparison,
Corvette,
sports
a
February
in
with
car,
GM
1983,
body frame
with
and rear fiber glass
This
design
sequential
(4)
words,
other
In
Corvette.
there
Toyota introduced the new Tercel
the
81,
the
a single project led by
arm,
The
1990
while
Starlet,
when
followed
Other
completely
described
is
In
the
the
(3-door),
There are many variations, but
market
the
to
1991.3,
Styling.
and A-arm,
struts
August
in
Automobil Revue (1986)
in
same
are
the
used
the
suspension
Tercel's
compound
rear
same
between
design
platform
Tercel
sequential
transfer
these
that
mm
80
is
two
all
vol.
The
1984.
as
follows:
axle
(trailing
new platform
chassis of this platform
is
1980,
for
the
the
1984
we
Therefore,
was originally developed
the Tercel
Starlet
longer than that of the
in
1984
was already 71 months or 5.92
is
categorized as a product
strategy.
examples of sequential design transfers are found
September
the
as
products.
The 1990 Tercel
was introduced.
design
specifications
wheelbase
The platform design age of
new
typical
the
The 1990
tracks
Starlet project.
Chrysler.
II
534).
has
1991).
concluded that the Tercel
that
introduced
McPherson
(p.
Tercel
Revue
Automobil
years old
team developed the
torsion tube) with coil springs, co-axial dampers and Panhard Rod, some models
front antiroll bar"
for the
was
1984 Starlet
body; front
"Integral
1984
project
manager Takashi Ishidera (Car
project
which
project,
Starlet
suspension system of the
(
The
September 1990.
in
This project seems to have utilized a platform that was originally developed for
74).
1984
Corvette.
generation
latest
Paseo (2-door coupe), and the Cynos (2-door coupe).
p.
since the introduction of the
and 4-door), the Corsa (3-door and 4-door), the Corolla
3-door,
(2-door,
came out
this
Design Transfer
Sequential
Tercel
However,
has been neither a rapid design transfer nor a
based on the
project
transfer
GM,
at
GM
at
134).
(p..
300ZX.
design, similar to the Nissan
any other projects
in
(1984):
bar and telescopic damper"
anti-roll
new
again an example of a
is
novel platform has never been seen
new
trailing
leaf spring,
four-wheel
rear axle support, all round independent
front
arm, control arm and steering tie rod;
and
front
suspension, front upper A-arm,
Chevrolet
the
for
Revue
Automobil
described in
is
replacement
a
platform employing an innovative
completely new
a
double-wishbone suspension system, which
"Integral
introduced
Chrysler
front-drive
K-car
project
developed
Dodge Aries and
described in Automobil
23
Revue (1982)
the
as:
in
new products
and
introduced
Plymouth Reliant.
at
a
The
Front McPherson strut and A-arm; rear rigid axle with trailing arm
"Integral body.
and Panhard
274).
Chrysler
other
several
used
Dodge
the
which
projects,
400),
include
1984
the
old
relatively
its
G-car
project
E-car
(the
bar"(p.
antiroll
system as a base
suspension
1983
the
damper and
telescopic
sprints,
coil
with
platform
this
distinctive
Yorker and
and rear
rod, front
project
and
Laser
Chrysler
New
Chrysler
(the
for
Dodge
the
Daytona), the
1985 H-car project (the Dodge Lancer and the Chrysler LeBaron GTS), the 1987
P car
(the
(the
project
Dodge Shadow and
Dodge Dynasty and
For example,
March
Revue
.
2465mm
original
the
as
New
Yorker).
the
K-cars,
same
the
and
specifications
the
462).
than the
K-cars,
we concluded
at
the platform
that
Plymouth
Reliant
date
was already
5.5
Automobil
the
shorter
at
Sundance
is
Dodge Shadow and
the
years
(
in
track,
front
75mm
is
Shadow and
of the
The platform design age of
introduction
the
same
the
Because the wheelbase of the Shadow/Sundance
1987, p.
Plymouth Sundance
chassis
Dodge Aries and
a shortened version of the K-car platform.
the
1988 C-car project
Dodge Shadow and Plymouth Sundance, which were introduced
the
employed exactly
1986,
1460mm,
the Chrysler
Plymouth Sundance), and the
the
(the
time difference
between September 1980 and March 1986).
In
we
section,
this
explained
primarily
using
journals,
such as Automotive
new product
the
6
new product
nimiber
percentage
we
new
of
has modified
and
Results
at
three-year
Revue
Automobil
News and
for
categorizing
However, most of
.
the
product
17
products
industry
other
popular press car magazines, also discuss whether a
is,
and how
it.
Discussion
explain
of each
development
in
procedure
based on an existing old platform or not, what the base platform
is
Before
four
specifications
standard
our
our analysis of the
introductions
multi-project
firms:
periods
three
between
strategy
U.S.,
data.
thick
(the
1980 and
line
4
refers
shows the trend of the
to
The graph shows
type.
nine
Figure
European,
1991.
24
and
five
the
the
scale)
left
trend
Japanese
of
and
total
the
new product
combined,
during
Trend: Usage of Different Multi-project strategy Types
Figure 4
Worldwide (US, European, and Japanese Manufacturers)
New
-,.
60
-.
-p
Number
Total
50
-
40
--
30
-
20
10
Usage
100%
Strategy
Product Introductions
70
New
of
Product Introductions
New
-
90%
. .
80%
-
70%
. .
60%
Design (%)
50%
- -
40%
-
30%
- -
20%
Sequential Design Transfer (%)
-
Rapid Design Transfer (%)
-
"^
Design Modific
10%
0%
- -
80-'82
1989-91.
middle of the
1989-91.
Use of
the
from
6%
1980s,
This
83-'85
implies
trend
design
rapid
that
development has been accelerating during
individual
for
to
to
also
increased
approximately
20%
in
automobile
the
in
strategy
transfer
1983-85
in
89-"91
86-'88
period.
this
industry,
In
other
have become even more important competitive factors than
been
are
transferring
most evident
new platform
period.
This trend also
opposed
to
core
single project
sub-system,
more quickly
designs
implies
that
the
overlap
with
to
new product
seem
previous years.
in
other
at
least
one
Firms have
product
lines
throughout
management of overlap among multiple
transfer
its
cannot
least
at
other
be
transfer,
some
to
project
done
solely
about 20%,
the
projects
Because the platform
as
is
a
platform
within
a
means
that
almost
because each rapid transfer
extent,
from
in
words, both short lead times
management has become more important.
of projects needed to be coordinated
involves
18%
and
speed with which designs are leveraged.
the
The percentage of rapid design
engineering group.
40%
in
management of
the
of
the
in
and the corporate-wide frequency of new product introductions
projects
Changes
1986-88
speed
the
sharply
which
the
design
platform
is
transferred.
Figures
in
the
sales
65
period.
5
revenue,
data
and
the
points,
Analysis
of
6
illustrate
new product
each
the
the
relationships
introduction
representing
data
in
Figure
rate
the
product
5
indicates
market share growth are positively correlated.
25
we found between market
share
growth
and the average platform design age for
strategy
that
of
one
firm
new product
Analysis of the
data
in
during
a
rate
and
shows
that
introduction
Figure 6
3-year
average
design
platform
hypothesis
suggested,
and
age
two
these
market
plots
newer platform designs across the
share
support
entire
growth
that
range of
firms
are
negatively
more products with
introduced
that
new products
tend
As our
correlated.
have gained market
to
share.
Figure
Market Share Change and
5
New
Product Introduction Rate
Market Share Change
60%
-r
40%
--
20%
--
^
I
+
0%
0^"
0.4
-20% -
40%
--
60%
--
0.6
0.8
I
1
New
+
H
1.2
1.4
Product Introduction Rate
Market Share Change and Average Platform Design Age
Figure 6
Market Share Change
60% T
^
40%
20%
Average Platform
Design Age (Year)
0%
Vr
1
12
10
-20% "
-40% -
60%
-»-
Descriptive
data
The average of changes
and a correlation matrix for major variables are
in
market share across
26
all
manufacturers
is
shown
in
Table
2.
not zero (=0.05), because
it
is
a percentage change in market share at each firm, which
product introduction
rate,
on average,
is
0.52.
focuses only on replacing existing products
its
car product
products
is
lines
2.10
new
develops two
2.0
years
Table 2
new
with
simplified
products,
the
other
is
a
The new
a percentage.
it
replaces
if
a
firm
about half of
all
The average platform design age of new
explanation of this number
products during a three-year period, and
(design age =0), and
old existing
A
itself
This number means, for example,
during the three-year period.
years.
is
is
that
a hypothetical
among them one
is
a
new
firm
design
design modification based on a platform of a four-year-
product (design age =4.0).
In
this
example, the average platform design age
old.
Descriptive Data and Correlation Matrix (N=65)
is
only an
words, only the usage of a rapid design transfer strategy
other
In
it.
with both a high
framework
variables
at
strongly associated
introduction rate and a low average platform design age, as the
analyzes
further
3
including
firm
size,
relationships
these
nationality
of
in
regression
and four different
firms,
models
time
beginning of each period.
nationalities
essential
regions
to
adjust
in
firms
the
may have
fluctuations
different
of
for
faced
currency
influences
the
for
are
Among
particularly
different
during
exchange
firms
in
these
control
important
variables,
different
these
for
each
of
rates
throughout
different
the
four
regions.
28
different
the
four
that
periods.
time
periods
control
Firm
for
each firm
time periods and
models,
economic and market conditions
with
periods.
measured by the number of product offerings throughout world markets
is
the
new product
is
Figure 2 suggests.
in
Table
size
usage of rapid design transfer has a significant positive correlation with
extensive
because
firms
For
it
is
various
in
example,
the
may have caused
;,
Table 3
Regression Results for Market Share
Independent variables
($)
Growth
project
strategy
strategy
has
strategy
enables
variables^**.
strong positive
a
firms
average platform design age,
both
by
quickly
Even though an extensive usage of
design
using
age,
A
product lines.
does
various
schemes (See Nobeoka, 1993
other
factors,
we
Third,
Strategic
designs
across
reduces
strategy
low
multiple
projects.
average
platform
across
multiple
the
new designs
the
using
these
between
points
influence of
regional
schemes,
differences.
using
design
rapid
the
and 2.5
years
1.5
analysis
two
and two 6-year periods.
4-year periods
three
cut-off
alternative
only
processing
data
and
data
the potential
tested
consider
that
different
divisions:
we
our
of
sensitivity
First,
analyses
for
tests
period
results
to
analyzes
which
4
transfer
There are no
years.
methods.
alternative
multi-project
multi-project
The
design-oriented",
all
(%)
strategies
"rapid
these
Using
strategy
65
the
strategy
categorize
analysis".
four groups.
same data using
the
categorizes
statistically
cluster
different
into
other
Table
depending on
means
for
the
in
section
clearly.
order
a
Groups for Multi-project strategy
This
In
two
tested
major differences
and
rate
suggests.
and the sequential design transfer strategy:
strategy
more
new
the
results).
those
to
2
examine
specific
for
sensitivity
methods
alternative
Figure
in
to
tests
addition
in
we conducted
Second,
introduction
transfer
and as suggested by our definition of
2
leverage
not
The rapid design
high percentage of design modification strategies has a negative impact on
conducted
firm-specific
Table
new design
the
market share growth as our hypothesis
We
in
transferring
alone
strategy
this
new product
high
a
indicated
as
scheme,
categorization
the
on market share growth.
influence
achieve
to
models, an extensive use of the rapid design transfer
these
In
in
design
firm
a
data,
four
transfer-oriented",
and "design modification-oriented," respectively.
new design
strategy,
rapid
modification
strategy,
respectively,
design
1,
much more
2,
Data points
strategic
groups
3-year
period.
groups
the
design
Groups
in
design
extensively
results
using
extent
the
the
of usage
data
Kof
points
and 4 can be labeled as "new
3,
"sequential
sequential
strategy,
strategic
the
a
we categorized
analysis,
Groups
during
characterize
that
show
to
different
extensively
we formulated
cluster
in
four
into
used
variables
the
of firms
points
data
method
different
a
transfer
than
those
1,
transfer-oriented",
2,
3,
strategy,
in
and 4 used
and
design
any other strategic
groups.
Average
definition,
platform
strongly
K-means
design
correlated
age
with
is
the
not
in
usage
these
of
regression
different
models
inter-project
because
it
is,
partially
by
strategies.
"begins by picking 'seed' cases, one for each cluster, which are spread
cases as much as possible.
Then it assigns all cases to the nearest
seed.
Next, it attempts to reassign all cases to the nearest seed.
Then it attempts to reassign each
case to a different cluster in order to reduce the within groups sum of squares.
Kmeans analysis
continues to reassign cases until the within-group sum of squares can no longer be reduced."
(SYSTAT: Statistics. 1992, 25) See Hartigan and Wong (1979) for the underlying algorithm.
apart
cluster
analysis
from the center of
all
the
30
Table 4
"
^„^^^
Performance Comparison among Strategic Groups
strategic
Groups
Group
but
1,
recognizing
is
that
Firms
whenever
much newer
these
results
Group
in
new
among
design age, 0.37 years,
year
three
a
This
products.
four
the
strategic
Group 4 (5.54 years)
years) or
(3.75
3
our definitions
reflect
during
1,
introduced
they
Group
than that of
of
the
On
average
lowest
the
in
Group
average.
gained 3.4% and 9.1% in market share over the 3-year period, respectively,
often
Group
of
the firms
transfer
We
strategic
Group 4
2.
designs
realize
groups.
the
that
product
K-means
cluster
order to verify this
In
1
designs
platform
and 3 firms
much lower
than
which mainly reused old existing designs and did not
firms,
multiple
across
new
mostly
developed
resulted
groups.
categorization.
strategic
period,
firms,
lines,
analysis
statistical
market share.
lost
not
is
the
way
only
to
formulate
method, we also used a more conceptual
method, a flow chart method, which identified four different groups depending on the extent
of usage of each multi-project strategy (See
not any major difference from
Table 4 also
There
are
some
lists
patterns
Europe, and Japan.
the
for
the
results
distribution
Nobeoka 1993
suggest that Japanese
projects
frequently
The
categorized
distributions
found
as
Group
tend
rapid
to
each group by firm nationality.
of
points
different
in
strategic
3
than
of the strategic groups
of Japanese
new
transfers
for
all
each of the four 3-year periods are presented
in
32
to
cluster
groups
analyses.
among
the
U.S.,
be categorized into Group
In addition, a higher proportion of U.S.
2.
transfer
design
is
of data
distributions
in
There
K-means
while more Japanese firms are found in Group
is
analysis).
obtained from the
Data points from the European firms tend
European data points
the actual
for
data
points.
technologies more
rather
data points
Figure
7.
than
by each of the
and
These differences
quickly
sequential
1,
and are more
design
17
transfers.
firms and for
Figure 7
Strategic
Groups Distribution Among Firms and Periods
Group
(New Design-Oriented)
1
Group 2 (Rapid Design Transfer-Oriented)
^ Group
3 (Sequential Design-Oriented)
Group 4 (Design Modification-Orientec
some
of
the
firms
and
European firms have followed the rapid design transfer strategy more than other firms.
In
There
some firms only
addition,
note
that
market
characteristic
patterns
the
recently
started
to
follow
performance
among
different
inter-project
in
Figure
The regression model, using dummy
5.
in
respect
and
the
distributions
For example, a few Japanese
this
strategy.
nationalities
or
periods
are
controlled,
strategic
as
variables
Group 2 gained more market share than those
nationality
to
However,
major findings discussed above, particularly those relating
differences
firms
with
groups among various firms and regions.
strategic
to
are
other
variables.
33
shown
for
in
do
groups,
in
firms
the
in
to
not
it
is
important
differences
change
regression
in
when
models
in
each group, shows that
other groups
after
controlling
for
Table 5
Regression Analyses for Market Share ($) with Strategic Groups
Independent Variables
related
multi -project
to
R-squared ranges from 0.42
purpose
growth.
section
is
Sales
growth,
for
and
design
performance,
advertising,
them,
quality
design
models
full-variable
want
customers
that
predictor
of market
and
new
of
quality
change
can
Japan,
and Europe.
rapid
design
age
quickly
products.
especially
pace,
Because changes
each
the
transfers
dummy
firm,
change
in
such
in
customer
in
design
and
adopt
to
related
individual
to
inter-related
potential
their
among
capabilities
to
rather
portfolio,
Although
has
rapidly
that
been
individual
new
design
in
standards of a "good"
the
markets
capture
of the
considerations
transfer
projects
and
associated
with
multiple
partially
conditions,
design
may be
quality
U.S.,
the
as
be able to meet
rapid
the
across
may
may
designs
sense,
this
firms
because
extent
the
of
differences
firm
framework for multi-project
propose a conceptual
strategy
seem
terms of relative market share)
(in
may have
also
that
organizational
specific
parameters
to
beyond
those
projects.
These parameters include the way technology and design are
in
the
implement
a
single
performance
speed
of
structure
or
design
and
strategies
focused
that
transfer,
processes,
as
seemed
to
Rapidly growing firms
market.
product
strategy
technology
organizational
on
the
and
their
well
as
have the
entire
project
product development project.
framework suggests
organizational
project
critical
the
projects,
corporate-wide
and
than on
our
to
captures
competition
plan
project
design
the
typology
on
on
discuss
captures
and needs, competitive
quality
earlier,
growing firms
two or more different projects have
directly
In
companies
As explained
quality.
multiple
influence
influences
change
individual
product-development
The
implications.
the
that
for
intention
show
different
a
a better
is
results.
Our primary
strategy
Among
factors.
reasonable
is
sophisticated
tastes
new design and good
a
variables
do not change the
price-
quality,
to
missing from these
is
partially
addition,
In
values are so rapid, only
assuming
addition,
In
market share
design quality
that
assumption
This
designs.
contemporary definition of good design quality.
strategy
relates
this
least
at
improve old designs.
to
trends and social
current fashion
Our primary
3).
newer designs are accompanied by more up-to-date
that
old
than
a
at
platform
assuming
features
design
a
average
that
new products
usually develop
(adjusted
performance than development productivity variables.
products,
sophisticated
well
predicts
that
one of the most important factors that
be
For example, Clark and Fujimoto (1991) have found
believe
Table
in
and numerous other
service,
availability,
and
buy,
to
models.
We
reasonably
develop a comprehensive model
to
product
may
growth
share
example, ultimately should result from the ability of a firm to
products
build
0.49 for the
to
not
this
in
market
explained
strategy
to
issues.
and
be
that
in
order
coordinated
In
particular,
productivity
35
implement rapid design
to
each other,
with
if
because
rapid
of
the
design
this
transfer,
paper does not
transfer
inter-project
sacrifices
coordination
required,
the
suggests
that
for
base
rapid
the
technology
because
transfer
through
only
project
to
a
important
may
not
Further
processes
to
be
optimize
optimal
studies
for
are
or
design
the
needed
managing
with
effective
projects
appears
example,
to
different
and
1993).
Fujimoto
relatively
of
the
most
In
36
strategies,
transferred
different
have
autonomous
effective
organizationally
this
from
from
a
effective
managing
argued
project
that
teams
a
are
management approach
projects
at
organizational
strategies.
the
addition,
(1991)
However,
multi-project
be
projects
among engineers and mutual
organizationally
and
individual
modification
design
management of multiple
explore
types
be
of
efficient
design
sharing
task
performance.
project
effective
to
or
more
preceding
a
(Nobeoka
Clark
system
transfer
can
survey
our
actually
is
design
transfer
more
individual
for
strategy
sequential
manager
However,
effective.
transfer
projects
For
project
be
project
two
projects.
"heavyweight"
than
rapid
management of multiple
individual
not
design
new
between
adjustments
may
strategy
the
firm
structure
level.
and
References
Abegglen, James C, and George Stalk,
The Japanese Corporation. New
Kaisha:
1985.
Jr.:
York, Basic Books.
Abemathy, W.
K.
and
J.
Destruction",
B.
Research
Policy,
Mapping
"Innovation:
1985.
Clark:
Winds of Creative
the
3-22.
14,
Automobile Revue: Bern, Switzerland, Hallwag Ag. Annual.
Automotive News:
Richard
Bagozzi,
Detroit,
M. Hout: 1988. "Fast-Cycle Capability
Review, Nov. -Dec,
Business
Gar
&
Driver
Nigensha.
Gar Styling (Tokyo, Japan).
Saneisha.
Kim
B:
Chicago,
IL,
Science
for Competitive
Harvard
Power",
110-118.
(New York, NY). Diamandis Communications.
Gar Graphic (Tokyo, Japan).
Clark,
Management.
Marketing
of
Weekly.
Inc.
Associates.
L. and T.
J.
Principles
1986.
P.:
Research
Bower,
MI, Grain Communications,
Monthly.
Monthly.
Bimonthly.
1989. "Project Scope and Project Performance: The Effect of Parts Strategy and
Involvement
Supplier
on
Management
Development,"
Product
Science, 35,
10,
1247-1263.
Clark,
Kim
B..
and Takahiro Fujimoto:
1991.
Or ganization, and Management
School
Business
Gordero,
Product
the
in
Development
World Auto
Performance:
Industry.
Boston,
"Managing
1991.
Harvard
Press.
Speed to Avoid Product Obsolescence: A
Techniques", Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8, 283-294.
Rene:
Strategy-
MA,
Survey of
for
"The Hidden Costs of Accelerated Product Development", Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 9, 188-199.
Crawford, C. Merle:
Gusumano, Michael
New
Dertouzos,
1992.
Michael
Robert
D.
John
E.,
and Jane
William
Structural
K.
MA, MIT
Innovations:
Ettlie,
Japan's
Richard
L.,
Cambridge,
Dewar,
1991.
A.:
Software Factories:
A
Management
Challenge to U.S..
.
York, Oxford University Press.
An
P.
E.
Lester,
and Robert M.
Dutton:
Empirical
1986.
Analysis",
"The
Adoption
Management
Bridges and Robert D. O'Keefe:
Differences
Solow:
1988.
Made
in
America.
Press.
for
Radical
Science, 30, 682-695.
37
versus
of
Radical
Science,
1984.
Incremental
32,
and
Incremental
1422-1433.
"Organization Strategy and
Innovation",
Management
Fujimoto,
and Antony Sheriff: 1989. "Consistent Patterns in Automotive Product
Product Development, and Manufacturing Performance - Road Map for
MIT International Motor Vehicle Program,
the
1990s", Cambridge, MA,
International Policy Forum.
Takahiro,
Strategy,
Fujimoto, Takahiro:
1989.
Kim
of
Business
Hartigan,
136.",
Hollander,
S.:
Automobile
School,
Graduate
Industry",
1992.
"Managing the Product Line: A
Unpublished Working Paper, Harvard
92-067.
M. A. Wong:
Applied
Cambridge,
1983.
"Plan for Economies of Scope",
1979.
Statistics,
28,
Harvard Business
"A K-means Clustering Algorithm: Algorithm AS
126-130.
Sources of Increased Efficiency:
MA, MIT
York,
NY, The
Johnson, S. C. and C. Jones:
Review, 49-62.
A
Study of du Pont Ravon Plants
Kim
B. Clark:
1988.
Dynamic
Manufacturing
1957.
Management
"How
Organize for
to
New
Products",
"Broader Product Line:
1990.
Science, 36,
10,
A
Harvard
Business
Necessity to Achieve
1216-1231.
E. J. and R. G. Cooper: 1991. "The Impact of Product Innovativeness
Performance", Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8, 240-251.
Kleinschmidt,
McDonough
1986. Principles
.
Free Press.
Kekre, Sunder, and Kannan Srinivasan:
Kotler, Philip:
.
Press.
Hayes, Robert H., Steven C. Wheelwright, and
Success,"
Harvard
November-December.
1965. The
New
Thesis,
B. Clark and Yaichi Aoshima:
the
and
A.
J.
Doctoral
Administration.
Goldhar, Joel D. and Mariarm Jelinek:
Review,
Unpublished
Industry",
Business
of
Fujimoto, Takahiro,
Case
"Organization for Effective Product Development: The Case of the
Automobile
Global
School
of
Marketing
.
Englewood
Cliffs,
New
Jersey,
on
Prentice-Hall.
III, Edward F. and Gloria Barczak:
1991. "Speeding Up New Product Development:
The Effects of Leadership Style and Source of Technology", Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 8, 203-211.
Meyer, Marc H. and Edward B. Roberts:
based Firms:
A
Pilot
Study",
1986. "New Product Strategy in Small TechnologyManagement Science, 32, 7, 806-821.
Meyer, Marc H. and Edward B. Roberts: 1988. "Focusing Product Technology
Growth", Sloan Management Review, 29, 4.
for
Corporate
Meyer, Marc H. and James M. Utterback: 1993. "The Product Family and the Dynamics of
Core Capability", Sloan Management Review, Spring, 29-47.
Miller,
1988. "A Taxonomy of Technological Settings, with Related
Performance Levels," Strategic Management Journal, 9, 239-254.
Alex:
Motor Trend: Petersen Publishing Company, Los Angeles, CA.
38
Strategies
and
Motor Vehicle
Statistics
Myers,
Annual.
and D. G. Marquis:
S.
Science
National
NAVI
1969.
Successful
Washington,
Innovation.
Industrial
S.C,
Foundation.
Nigensha.
(Tokyo, Japan):
(Tokyo, Japan). Japan Automobile Manufacturers
of Major Countries
Association.
Monthly.
Newsweek: New York, New York, November
1,
1993: PP, 126
Nobeoka, Kentaro: 1993. "Multi-project Management: Strategy and Organization in
Automobile Product Development", Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, MIT Sloan
School of Management.
K. and G. Hamel: 1990. "The Core Competence of the Corporation",
Business Review, 68 (3), 79-91.
Prahalad,
C.
Roberts,
Edward
Marc H. Meyer: "Product Strategy
Management Review, 19, 1, 1991.
and
and
B.
Engineering
Corporate
Harvard
Success",
Rothwell, R., C. Freeman, A. Horlsey, V. T. P. Jervis, A. B. Robertson and J. Townsend: 1974.
"SAPPHO Updated - Project SAPPHO Phase 11", Research Policy, 3, 258-291.
Norman
Smothers,
P.:
Strategies",
SYSTAT:
Statistics,
Teece, David
J.:
1990.
Combinations
of
Scope of the Enterprise", Journal
of
Japanese
of
"Patterns
Strategic
Strategy:
Management Journal,
11,
Version 5.2 Edition: 1992, Evanston, IL,
1980.
"Economies of Scope and
the
Economic Behavior and Organization,
Thompson, James D: 1967. Or ganizations
in
.
SYSTAT,
New
York, McGraw-Hill.
von Braun, Christoph-Friedrich: 1991. "The Acceleration Trap
Management Review (Summer), 43-52.
Wemerfelt,
Birger:
Journal,
1984.
5,
"A
Resource-Based
View of
the
Wheelwright, Steven C. and
New
Womack, James, Daniel
New
Zirger,
Billie
Jo
in
Firm",
the
Real
Strategic
World,"
Sloan
Management
171-180.
Wheelwright, Steven C. and Jr. W. Earl Sasser: 1989. "The
Harvard Business Review, May-June, 112-125.
York,
Inc.
223-247.
1,
Action
Strategic
521-533.
Kim
New
1992. Revolutionizing
B. Clark:
Product Development Map",
Product
Development.
N ew
York, The Free Press.
Jones,
and Daniel Roos:
1990.
The Machine
that
Changed
the
World
.
York, Rawson Associates.
and Modesto Maidique:
Empirical Test",
Management
1990.
"A Model of New Product Development: An
Science, 36,
39
7.
A ppendix
Appendix
Floor
1.
Panels
Points
Change Index of Platform Design and
List of Products
•
Torsion Bar Type
This type uses a torsion bar as a spring.
the
body,
effective
•
it
difficult
is
vibrations
insulate
to
Because the spring
from types, despite
is
attached directly on
its
compact and space
design.
Arm Type
Semi-trailing
system was once popular as a high performance independent rear suspension.
However, because it is difficult for this type to control the degree of toe-in-and-out, more
sophisticated systems such as variations of multi-link types have been developed by some
This
manufacturers.
New Technology
L..
in
the
1980s
Variations on Double
Wishbone Type
The basic concept of the double wishbone type is not new. This type used to be seen
Two
only in expensive models and racing cars, because it can be heavy and expensive.
layers of arms flexibly control tire movements.
In recent years, some firms applied new
design
result,
and
technology
type has
this
Variations
to
include
those
or only in front instead of for
•
that
Some
of wishbone-shaped arms.
structure
basic
this
even been used
to
weight and cost and
lower
as
a
for the upper or lower arms, instead
have double wishbone suspension system only in rear
wheels.
Variations
five
or
the
to
suspension
control
and Japanese firms have been leading
middle- or upper- models.
•
order
use a single arm
cars
all
of Multi-Link Type
The newest concept in
more links for each tire
in
expensive sedans.
less
in
Semi-trailing
Arm Type
in
all
system,
using
dimensions of
a
tire
complicated
movements.
adopting this type of suspension
with Additional Control
in
combination of
Some European
primarily their
Arms and Hubs
during cornering, changing lanes,
and braking, some firms add a sophisticated mechanism such as a toe control hub, additional
links, and pillow ball joints.
In
order
to
control
the
degree
of
toe-in-and-out
41
3
J
Ci
Q
O 7/ U
MIT
3
TDfiD
LIBRARIES
DDfl32bT3
3