ارزیابی عملکرد در زمینه توسعه محصول
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|2765||2010||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6710 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Business Horizons, Volume 53, Issue 4, July–August 2010, Pages 359–369
In today's competitive environment, the need is greater than ever to deploy product development investments more effectively. To assist managers, we have developed two conceptual tools to support the evaluation of performance in product development. The Performance Measurement Evaluation Matrix (PMEX) helps managers evaluate performance measurement systems they currently use, in order to identify areas requiring improvement. Results from using the PMEX indicate that it is common to associate performance measurements with the efficiency aspects of time, cost, and quality, without monitoring the value created. Performance is largely perceived by managers in terms of time, cost, and quality of the activities in the later phases of the development process. We contend that an effective performance measurement system is based on performance criteria, and then derives measurements based on these. It is argued that there should be a change in the perception of performance, before performance evaluation systems can be improved. The Product Development Organizational Performance Model (PDOPM) assists in developing the perception of performance by relating uncertainty, efficiency, and effectiveness at three generic activity levels within the product development function. The use of our tools provides an improved perception of performance and its measurement, thus enabling improvements to the evaluation of performance.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The product development function is vital for every product-delivering company, especially in today's increasingly competitive environment. In the context of evaluating performance of product development activities, measurements are gaining importance because the effectiveness and the efficiency of these activities not only determine a firm's competitive advantage, but also its very survival (Loch et al., 1996). The methods used for evaluating product development projects have not, however, been much improved upon during the last 50 years (Rubinstein, 2004). An explanation may be related to the characterization of evaluating performance in product development as a “wicked mess,” since the research traditions dealing with behavioral and dynamic complexity have remained largely separate (Roth & Senge, 1996). In an attempt to address these complexities, this research has introduced two conceptual models: the PMEX and the PDOPM. The PMEX is a tool to be used by managers and decision makers within organizations, in order to evaluate and initiate discussions of what is currently measured and what the performance measurement system should and should not measure. Results from using the PMEX indicate that there is a focus on measurements in the later phases of the product development process. Another conclusion is that today's measurements are focused on what is easily measurable and not necessarily what is important to measure. In this sense, it appears that the measurements performed are not utilized in supporting managers in their decisions on actions for improvements. Thus, there is potential for introducing new measurements from literature to obtain a more holistic evaluation of the product development function. Technology is not used as a performance measure in any of the case companies. This is somewhat surprising since the case companies develop industrial software-intensive products and are all highly dependent on the technology incorporated in their products. Despite the considerable influence that the technology and the architecture may have on performance, most of the development is evolutionary in its character (i.e., adding new features to, and making changes to, existing products). The rate of improvement of the performance of a technology has repeatedly been shown to conform to an S-shaped curve (Schilling, 2006). As such, the ability to determine when the currently deployed technology has reached the end of such an S-curve—and is therefore in need of an update—would clearly be beneficial, especially with respect to the efficiency aspect of product development performance. The holistic system view of the performance of the product development function, as modeled in the PDOPM, is to be viewed as an attempt to conceptually visualize and initiate discussions about the current perception of performance within an organization. Decisions requiring action for improvement can be made by reasoning about the effect the product strategy, project management, and product activities have on the performance of the product development function as a whole. The PDOPM provides managers in particular with a conceptual tool, to be used in order to holistically discuss and analyze the current state of performance, as well as to identify strong areas and weak areas that need to be improved. Moreover, it is concluded in this research that there is a tendency to further improve that which is already performing well, while more difficult problems are not addressed. In this respect, the PDOPM can be used to pinpoint the root cause of a current issue by analyzing the relevant activities in terms of input, output, resources, and goal in the activity model. One important characteristic of the PDOPM is the different arrows connecting the activities, since they associate the different activity levels with their different objectives. Moreover, different resources are usually involved in different activities, making knowledge transfer of great importance in achieving a high-performance product development function. Having the PDOPM as a conceptual tool to facilitate discussions is important in order to pinpoint areas in which improvements are called for. One significant finding from our interviews is that the role of the strategy adopted is neglected in managers’ perceptions of performance. It appears that it is taken for granted that the right product is being developed, and very few measurements are made relating to the early activities of the product development function in comparison with the number of measurements relating to the project execution. The PDOPM may be used in order to define specific performance criteria related to the product strategy activities, and performance measurements may be derived by making the arrows of these activities explicit. One explanation of this imperfect perception of performance may be the limitations and the ambiguity of the words describing performance. Thus, the term product development efficacy may be introduced to describe the capability to identify or create a market opportunity, and to develop and deliver a product fulfilling exactly what was identified as important by the market opportunity. Efficacy can be described as—for example—the capability of a drug or a medical treatment to produce a desired result (Wehmeier, Hornby, & McIntosh, 2005), and otherwise in the sense of capacity or power to produce a required effect. The product strategy activity is important for product development efficacy, since it determines the choice of what to develop in consideration of the needs of the market and the capabilities of the organization. We argue that if this is not performed successfully, it is difficult to compensate for by means of project management and product activities. Efficacy can thus be viewed as the result attained by continuous, effective management of effectiveness, efficiency, and uncertainty in each of the three generic levels of activities in the PDOPM. If, for example, the customer needs changes during the development of a new product, this must be reflected in the product development project to ensure that the right product is being developed. It is argued that high performance of the product development function is achieved when there is efficacy in the complete product development portfolio. In a review of performance measurements in marketing, Clark (2007) contends that the issue is not about the measurements themselves; there are often already measurements to suit most purposes. Instead, the larger issues lie in understanding how these measurements are interlinked and how to use them effectively in management. From our research, it is concluded that it is important to have a well-defined objective and a common perception of the performance to be measured, before it can be measured. Future work in this research area could benefit from the design of a performance evaluation system based on experiences from using the PMEX and the PDOPM. The result is to build a performance evaluation system based on relevant performance criteria derived from using the activity model, a condition that appears to be especially needed within the development of software-intensive products.