Review of Thia et al. Quality tools and techniques used in product development
Thia, C.W., Chai, K., Bauly, J., & Xin, Y.(2005). Research and concepts: An exploratory study of the use of quality tools and techniques in product development. The Total Quality Management Magazine, 17(5): 406-424.
According to Thia et al. (2005), successful and effective new product development (NPD) is a source of competitive advantage and corporate renewal in various organizations. As a consequence, new product development is viewed by companies as a strategic necessity to gain a competitive edge in the market. Researchers, practitioners, and academicians have introduced quality improvement tools in order to enhance company’s performance in new product development. Some of the quality improvement tools include bench marking, failure mode and effect analysis (FM EA), conjoint analysis, and quality function deployment (QFD). The authors further mention that the tools have their own limitations despite the positive influences they have on a company. Equally, there exist minimal evidences regarding the effective implementation in new product development process.
The article also cites some studies conducted in American and British companies regarding the use of quality improvement tools. The researchers concluded that American companies in contrast to their counterparts tend to use technologically inclined techniques and tools. On the contrary, British companies tend to adopt quality management tools. The article also cites a study conducted between Japanese and American companies regarding the utilization of QFD. The research findings indicated that the origin of QFD was Japan; however, it is frequently utilized by the American firms. This is attributed to the fact that Japanese management is inadequate; hence making the use of QFD tools extremely challenging Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Reasons why the adoption of quality improvement tools is still low
Even though quality improvement tools such as statistical process control (STU) and FMEA are widely used in the manufacturing sector, their systematic utilization in new product development is not prevalent in industries. The low use of such tools is attributed to the fact that market research companies are being involved in addressing problems related to new product development. Additionally, project managers have limited knowledge with regards to the application of quality management tools as well as limited faith regarding the effectiveness of new product development tools. Some other reasons include: inadequate commitment by management in applying the tools as well as organization resistance to change as a result of the existing organization culture. However, Thia et al. (2005) argues that successful implementation and utilization of new product development techniques and tools is significant in enhancing integration in the new product development process. In light of these, the previous years have witnessed the development of numerous techniques and tools that have made new product development process manageable. From the above analysis, it is obvious that potential users are not making use of new product development tools. The reason behind minimal usage of the tools include companies resistance to change, limited resources, ineffective training of company staff, inappropriate usage of the tools, poor management of tools, and company project managers are less committed towards using the tools. Some other reasons include industries nature, products or projects novelty, organizations characteristics, usability, and the utility resulting from the tools.
Even though the utilization of quality management tools do not promise new product development, they aim at outlining systematic problems being faced by companies; therefore, companies’ needs to address these problems in order to enhance new product development process. Regardless the problems experienced by companies
in improving new product development outcome, the articles asserts that there exists a positive connection between firm’s performance and the utilization of new product development tools. In a study conducted by Griffin (1992) on the utilization of QFD, it was evident that more than 82% of the study participants agreed that permanent and significant improvements in the company were attributed to QFD. Additionally, QFD yields intangible benefits including effective communication amongst organization cross-functional teams.
Critical Analysis
Some organization managers acknowledge the significance of quality improvement tools like QFD in bringing positive results in the organizations. However, some fail in recognizing the tools real value in supporting product development. Despite QFD and other tools benefits, they have their own limitation. For instance, QFD is criticized because it makes use of charts that are extremely complex. Additionally, it has the tendency of distorting customer voice quality as a result of the subjectivity and vagueness of the data collected from customers. The article has also succeeded in investigating the factors that might influence the selection of new product development tools by companies or industries.
It analyzes the new product development tools drawbacks and benefits. Additionally, the article provides its readers with the trade-offs that they need to comprehend whilst adopting particular new product development tools. The author acknowledges that user-friendliness, usefulness, and time are essential factors considered by industries before adopting any tool.
However, the decision to utilize a particular tool greatly depends on its tangible benefits. Therefore, regardless the tool popularity, it cannot be adopted by industries if it does not have potential benefits. This is not true because there is no way a tool can be popular and yet fail to be adopted by industries. The popularity of any tool is triggered by the benefits it accrues to an organization. Additionally, given today’s technological developments, managers cannot fail to comprehend the true value of a tool in enhancing product development.
Whether study methodology and findings are applicable to other industries
The article makes use of a quantitative study in testing the entire research hypothesis, hence saving time. Additionally, the use of the survey approach can permit the author of the article to extend studies to other regions; hence not restricting himself to the local context. As a consequence, the author might be able to compare and identify new product development tools adoption across distinct regions and industries. The research findings from the regional context can provide industry managers with better methodologies and guidelines in the implementation of quality improvement tools in new product development environment.
The article findings indicate that QFD usage by firms is minimal despite the tool effectiveness. As a consequence, the article channels much of its focus in investigating why the implementation of QFD and other tools is low in various industries. The article from analysis of previous research highlights the major limitations of the new product development tools. Some of the tools shortcomings include the time taken to have them implemented in the organization, high costs incurred as a consequence of their implementation, and their prediction inaccuracies. However, these shortcomings can be addressed by making some significant modifications on the tools to improve them. The modifications can be achieved by market research firms. Additionally, the level of their usage is affected by project, organizational and cultural differences.
The article points out that the industries often analyze some pertinent issues before adopting these tools. Some of the factors analyzed include the tool effectiveness, user-friendliness, time and cost taken to implement it, functionality and necessity of the tool. These factors are crucial for companies when determining the choice of tool to utilize. Thus, the above information can be applied to other industries whilst determining the type of tool they need to adopt.
Practical Implications: Whether the study is appropriate for the GCC Region
. Total quality management principles adoption is considered a new phenomenon in the Gulf Corporation Council. According to the study conducted to investigate the implementation of total quality management principles and techniques in Saudi Arabia with regards to improving customer satisfactions, product quality, and widening a company market share, it was evident that companies are unaware of the benefits of total quality management and its implementation (Rahmanl and Attar, 2005). Therefore, the study is appropriate for the GCC region because it provides essential information on factors that industries can consider when adopting quality management tools.
For instance, the article quotes from various researches to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of new product development tools. For instance, the author makes use of Cristiano et al. studies to enlighten the readers on why QFD is utilized in America in contrast to Japan where it originated. Additionally, the author makes use of case studies to make the audience more conversant with the topic as well as gain significant insights and come up with more specific hypotheses or questions. The article gives the readers with an in-depth examination of aspectes which encourages different product advanced tools adoption in campnanies. Various factors that the article analyzes are such as internal factors for example flexibility, usefulness, user-friendliness, popularity, monetary cost, and time; and external factors such as project novelty, size of the campany, technical competency, team cohesiveness, administration support, cultural variations, and nature of the business.
Flexibility: The author of the article argues that as long as a tool is flexible, it can be utilized without adhering to the guidelines and still deliver. He also points out that the tool might be re-invented by the users to accomplish the purpose they want.
User-friendliness: The author argues that a tool is useful if it is able to provide the user with a specific value. However, its usefulness depends on the intangible and tangible benefits it can provide the user. The articles goes forwards and outlines the tangible benefits including lower design costs, project improvement, and minimization of development time. The article makes the reader understand that the benefits are apparent. it also succeeds in outlining the intangible benefits of a tool including better comprehension of the needs of the customer and communication
improvement between various departments in an organization. Popularity: The article argues that tool popularity increases if it is adopted by competitors; therefore, the usage of a tool by various companies influences its adoption.
Monetary cost: This factor plays a significant role in the adoption of the quality improvement tool because the primary objective of companies is profit maximization. Companies take cost into consideration whilst adopting a new product development tool. The costs incurred in the implementation of product development tools include cost of hiring consultants, cost of training staff, cost of successfully implementing the tool, and the cost of purchasing the software. However, monetary cost is not a key factor considered by industries whilst adopting a new product development tool. The utilization of a particular tool by an industry or company is accomplished after a cost-benefit analysis is done.
Time: Time is not a key factor when it comes to identifying quality improvement tools by a company. The manner in which the author tackles the above factors is a clear indication that the article contains breakthrough information for GCC regions. Additionally, it might trigger other researchers in GCC region under the same discipline to revise their concept or notions regarding the subject as well as conduct further research in the areas not covered by the article.
Future Directions
Despite the fact that there are a wide range of quality improvement tools, the article primarily focuses on Quality function deployment tool. It would be prudent if the article would emphasize on the other
quality management tools, because, industrialists are already familiar with quality function deployment (QFD) tool. According to the interviews conducted, majority of the industrialists asserted that they were conversant with QFD. As per their feedbacks, some of them had tried the tool whilst others had abandoned the tool and did not have any intensions of using it. For instance, out of the seven industrialists interviewed, three of them had utilized the tool. However, after its initial attempts, they abandoned it because they found it to be time consuming and tedious. Hence, the reason why the article should focus on other tools other than QFD. The article also fails to thoroughly discussing external factors affecting the implementation of new product development tools. Some of the factors include culture, industry, and nature of organization.
Therefore, conclusions cannot be drawn from the article findings. Despite the fact that the article has provided its readers with new understanding with regards to the topic by utilizing case studies and past literatures, it has numerous limitations that trigger further research. The research has primarily focused on the adoption of new development tools with reference to their usage in industries. However, future research might analyze the adoption of the tools from two dimensions. Apart from analyzing the frequency of their utilization, future studies can also examine the thoroughness of how industries make use of such tools.
The article also analyzes and examines the internal factors such as flexibility, usefulness, user-friendliness, popularity, monetary cost, and time; that affect the adoption of new product development tools.
However, the article makes use of a sample that is characterized by large and medium sized companies. As a consequence, monetary costs are considered a secondary element. Therefore, future research needs to take into consideration various industry categories ranging from multinational companies to small private companies. Similarly, the article fails to deeply examine external factors despite that fact that some preliminary studies on the factors has been done before by other researches. Even though significant insights are provided regarding how internal factors influence new product development tools in the industries, the relationship between industry adoption of the tools and usage is not tested statistically. It is therefore important to test the correlation utilizing a quantitative approach. Equally, through the use of survey research design, the research can be extended to more companies.
References
Griffin, A. (1992). Evaluating QFD’s use in U.S. firms as a process for developing products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(3): 171-88.
Rahmanl, L., & Attar,M.T.(2005). Implementation of TQM in Manufacturing Industries in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from, http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/29945/58859_1.pdf?sequence=1
Thia, C.W., Chai, K., Bauly, J., & Xin, Y.(2005). Research and concepts: An exploratory study of the use of quality tools and techniques in product development. The Total Quality Management Magazine, 17(5): 406-424