Search

Collectively solving problems shared by many nations requires a new global science and technology commons, which could be modeled on successful past experiences.

The need to understand the processes contributing to marsh sedimentation has become more urgent with the recent recognition of the role of tidal marshes as sea defences, as well as the many restoration efforts currently under way. This study was designed to build upon previous sedimentation work at Scolt Head Island by Combining techniques for measuring short-term sedimentation, with detailed assessment of hydroperiod, previously used only in comparison with longer-term accretion measurements or in micro-tidal systems. Measurements of water level, sediment deposition (at various distances from the creek margin) and suspended sediment concentration (SSC) (creek margin and an interior site) were made at Hut Marsh over three sequential over-marsh tides during May 1994. Sediment trap data show a significant trend of declining sediment deposition away from the creek when data from all three tides are combined. All tides show higher SSC on the flood tide than on the ebb tide at the creek margin location. There is little difference in flood and ebb SSCs at the interior site. An order of magnitude decrease in sediment deposition within 20 m on the creek shows the rapidity with which sediment is deposited on these marshes. Higher tides influence both the magnitude and pattern of marsh surface sediment deposition. Increased creek velocities on higher tides provide more potential for resuspension within the creek and increase the supply of sediment to the marsh surface. This study suggests that the design of tidal creeks may be essential for the development of sustainable coastal marshes in restoration projects.

Some companies, alliances of companies, and project teams are more effective than others at NPD, even though they do not necessarily have staff members who are any smarter or more creative. In this chapter we draw on our own research and on our observations of a large number of companies, as well as the research and observations of others, to describe some of the characteristics that make some companies, alliances and project teams particularly effective at NPD.

Managers sometimes face the painful necessity of having to stop an NPD process. On other occasions, they may have to divest or discontinue a current product that is no longer successful or that no longer fits the company’s strategy. This chapter takes up these situations.

New product success depends heavily on the compatibility of the product with corporate strategy, and on the formulation of a new product concept that meets market needs. Information on the market must be collected and evaluated. At the same time the NPD team must not be so constrained by current market demands that it overlooks opportunities in new markets. This chapter takes up these aspects of the creation of a new product concept.

As we saw in Chapter 1, a company can be the first to market a new product, only to have other companies quickly move in and take the market away from them. EMI invented the CT scanner, and Konica was the first to come out with an auto-focus camera, but both EMI and Konica were soon eclipsed by other firms that entered the market with improved versions of the new products. In Chapter 1 we described how Sony avoided this problem by continually making improvements after launching the Walkman.

Each new product is unique, and no two new products are developed in quite the same way. Part of the challenge for those involved in managing NPD is finding commonalities that make it possible to learn from their own experiences and those of others. In Chapter 3 we described how different processes should be used, depending on whether the new product is technology intensive, market intensive where consumer preferences are stable, or market intensive where consumer preferences are highly dynamic. The development of a new drug or copying Figure 12.1 Success factors in new product development machine should be approached very differently from the development of a new mayonnaise or a new line of women’s clothing. But, even though there are major differences in new product processes, certain success factors are generally applicable. These factors, and how they fit together, are shown schematically in Figure 12.1.

So far we have looked at the various stages of the NPD process, why the process sometimes fails, and how organizations can be structured to increase the chance of success. In this chapter we will look at how new products can be evaluated during the various stages of the NPD process.

In this chapter we explore creativity in research organizations. A major problem facing managers is how to structure organizations to conduct research that is effective for the company. Machine-like organizations with their rigid hierarchical structures, tightly specified roles, elaborate decision-making rules and standard operating procedures (SOPS) are highly efficient at performing standard tasks. But they do not do well when it comes to tasks like research, where inputs cannot be standardized, where processes require frequent adaptation, and where outputs must be dynamically tailored for acceptance in fast changing environments. Many researchers on organizations and the psychology of creativity conclude that the best organizational form to carry out non-routine objectives is one that allows maximum flexibility and gives almost unlimited discretion to organization members. Some scholars call this an “organic” form of organization and contrast it with the “mechanical” form associated with traditional bureaucracies.57 In this chapter we draw on some of our own research to suggest that while the mechanical organizational form is not suited to research, the pure organic form also has its problems. We propose a third model.

The successful development of different types of products requires that different NPD processes be used. Some products, for example, are technology intensive, such as copiers and pharmaceuticals. Some are market intensive, but in markets where consumer preferences are relatively stable, such as cosmetics and mayonnaise. And for some products, consumer preferences are crucial, but are highly dynamic. An example is fashionable women’s clothing. The successful development of new technology intensive products requires considerable technological testing. With market intensive products extensive market testing is needed. And, when the product involves a high level of demand uncertainty, it is necessary to use a trial and error experimental approach involving several cycles of short production runs and dynamic market feedback.

Often a new product development (NPD) process does not result in a new product. This may mean that the NPD process should be considered a failure. The company may desperately need the new product. But sometimes a NPD process can be considered successful because it prevents a money-losing product from being launched. Discontinuing development at an early stage may be the right decision. It may keep the company from spending a lot of money on a product that has poor prospects. In any case, no one should expect that every NPD process, or even most of them, will result in a product. To take an extreme example, the pharmaceutical industry screens an average of 10,000 molecules to find 250 suitable for preclinical testing. Of the 250 undergoing testing, only ten make it through to clinical trials, and only one is approved to go on the market. An effective NPD process is not one that makes a new product out of each new idea, but rather one that efficiently selects and develops the ideas that result in products that best fit the needs of the corporation and its customers.