Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Philipson, S., Ph.D., & Wendel, E. M.Sc.
Is customer involvement in product development driven by high product complexity and/or high produc8on cost?
AbstractThis study of the relation between two factors that might explain why the Swedish wood component manufacturing industry use customer involvement in product development to a very small extent, failed to give high complexity and high production cost interesting predictory value in explaining the limited role of customer involvement in product development.
In a complementary study, although with a small response rate, of the much more complex machine industry for the wood component industry even indicated that product complexity negatively impact customer involvement.
Key wordsProduction cost, product complexity, customer involvement, product development, B2B.
BackgroundCapitalism has two opposing tendencies; the general law of competition, driving towards
perfect competition and commodities on the one hand and the strive of each individual
company to differentiate its products to reap the monopoly rent of monopolistic
competition, oligopoly or monopoly; Ricardo (1817), Marx (186Z), Schumpeter (1907)
and Sraffa (1960). The fundamental differentiation is innovation and new product
development.
But why do companies in many industries ”accept” ”commoditization” of their products;
not making enough efforts to invent or develop new products?
Research has showed that customer involvement is crucial for successful new product
development; Von Hippel & Urban (1988), Pitta et al (1996), Matzler & Hinterhuber
(1997), Lagrosen (2005). In spite of this many companies refrain from customer
involvement. Why? Interviews with key persons in the extremely commoditized Swedish
wood component indicated that important factors behind this laxity could be the low
product complexity and the low value added.
1(20)
New product development in the wood industry is essential. Organizations have been
created both in Sweden and abroad, to Zind ways to improve and change product
development, Forest Tech Europe (2008), VINNOVA, ”Woodwisdom”. Competitive
advantage through product development is believed to end in the wood product
industry, due to a non-‐moving market; but this market stagnation might be just as well
explained because there are few real innovations; Wood material science & engineering
(2008).
The relationships between Swedish forest industry and their suppliers are not well
developed. Specialization often leads to expertise and innovation, but the wood
component suppliers are normally not specialized. Communication between companies
and suppliers is limited and ineffective. In the forest industry innovations are rare,
Fredriksson (2003). The Swedish wood manufacturing industry is facing intensiZied
global competition. In many companies (especially smaller ones, struggling for survival),
it is an imperative to Zind new ways of development to increase proZit; Ekberg
(Technology University of Luleå).
The Swedish glued edge pine panel industry has decreased. According to Bengt Friberg
at the Swedish Wood & Furniture Association (Trä & Möbelförbundet), the market has
dropped with 17% the 1st half of 2008 compared to 2007. Due to foreign competition,
the 30 Swedish companies in 1995 have now become 6. The glued edge pine panel
industry had a stronger position a couple of years ago, when the quality of the Swedish
wood was well renowned and demand from international markets increased. However,
the quality of foreign competition has improved, and the advantage that Swedish
companies had have disappeared. Friberg argues that the future lies in raw material
processing; it is crucial to differentiate: Specialization, technical improvements and
design thinking can put the Swedish industry in the lead again.
Despite efforts, a substantial part of all product development projects fail; resulting in
the launch of products not accepted by the market, thus wasting resources. Reasons are
bad communication and low customer involvement. Product failure is costly and time
consuming; doing it right the Zirst time can keep a company alive and give it competitive
advantage, Matzler & Hinterhuber (1997).
2(20)
If customer involvement can affect product development in a positive way, conditions
that affect the choice to involve customers are of interest. Are product complexity and
the value-‐added important factors? The particularities of the product dictate not only
the kind of technology a company have, but also the purchasing behavior of the buyers;
Richard & Xiaohuba (2004). So, does product complexity and/or value added also
inZluence if the company chose to involve customers in product development?
2. Theory
The ultimate test of innovation is consumer response; Pitta et al (1996). To meet the
need of customers, companies require technical competence, integration competence
and market/business knowledge. Successful product development depends on
understanding the customer; Lagrosen (2005). Using customers’ needs and wishes as a
starting point in product development increases creativity in the product development
process; Esbri (2008).
It would consequently be of value to investigate the drivers of customer involvement in
product development. Customer involvement is crucial in product development; Von
Hippel & Urban (1988), Lagrosen (2005), Pitta et al (1996), Matzler & Hinterhuber (1997).
Findings about the product and productions aspects driving the involvement of
customers, would help companies to know how their competitors would use product
development as a differentiation strategy. It will map how the wood industry and its
suppliers function and might lead to an awakening about the necessity to develop new
products.
Little research has been made of the forest product industry.; Hovgaard & Hansen
(2004). Not much is known about its innovation practices and its product development.
What is known is mainly about the furniture industry; an industry driven by fashion and
end customer preferences. Product development in industrially oriented sectors may
differ and must be investigated further. The future success of forest industry products
ought to be centered on new products, new processes and the use of new raw materials;
Hovgaard & Hansen (2004).
3(20)
2.1 Commodity products
A large portion of the Swedish forest products are commodities. A commodity has the
same features as other products in the market, the difference lying in the price of the
product. The fact that buyers mainly consider the price of the product leads to a limited
information Zlow between suppliers and customers. The lack of information Zlow
inZluences the commodity producer negatively. If the needs and wants of the Zinal
customer do not reach the supplier, they will probably not be able to satisfy those needs;
Johansson (2004). Without innovation, industrial markets risk ending up with
commodity products; McQuiston (2004).
2.2 Product complexity
According to Richard & Xiaohuba (2004), manufacturers of complex products in the
environmental industry context, started to realize that early customer involvement in
product development effectively decreases market uncertainty, production cost and
time-‐to-‐market.
Eppinger & Novak (2001) divide product complexity into:
1. The number of product components to specify and produce.
2. The number of interactions to manage between these components, named parts
coupling.
3. The degree of product novelty.
In Eppinger & Novak (2001) it is argued that product complexity is driven by a number
of factors; choices in performance, technology and product architecture.
2.3 Added value and Production cost/unit
High added value on the product makes it easier to put resources to product
development. It is also indication of the (potential) proZit; it is therefore unlikely that
companies would answer direct questions about the value added. However, in
commoditized markets with low complexity products, the value added is low. Ceteris
paribus with a comparable value-‐added percentage, production cost would give
indication of the absolute value-‐added. We supposed that a question about production
cost would be less invasive. The production cost is an important variable when choosing
4(20)
overall corporate strategies. The cost of the product dictates the lower boundary price
the product will have and is therefore crucial to keep as low as possible, Sloman & Hinde
(2007).
2.4 Product development
According to Ulrich & Eppinger (1995, p. 2), product development is deZined as “...the set
of activities beginning with the perception of a market opportunity and ending in the
production, sale and delivery of a product.”
According to Gounaris et al (2001) industrial goods companies are not as market
oriented as consumer goods companies, including less considering cultural needs and
general behavior. Not being market oriented is a result of having engineers and R&D
oriented rather than marketing oriented managers; Hlavaeck (1980). As a result, more
value is given to technical rather than selling aspects. A reason why industrial companies
are more sales oriented than market oriented could be that buyers build long-‐term
relations with suppliers; Gounaris et al (2001), Gansean (1994). Industrial companies
pay more attention to product technology and how to achieve competitive advantage
through technological superiority than to the product itself. The relation is “locking up”
the buyer with the supplier; the former is not reevaluating the relationship. To gain
competitive advantage, companies ought to be market oriented, using design,
implementing market research and strategic marketing; Gounaris et al (2001).
Product development can be either radical or incremental. Incremental product
development modiZies already existing products or adds features to them. The
development process focuses on current customer preferences. Those preferences will
be the basis for product modiZication. It is essential for companies working on volatile
markets to develop products to compete with new product lines; Ulrich & Eppinger
(2000). Radical product development focuses on new business through product and/or
processes that change the economies of a business; the target is a new market, Ettlie et
al (1984).
5(20)
2.5 Process development
According to Pisano (1994) the fundamental challenges of process development are
quite similar across industries; despite differences in speciZic activities. Process
development starts with the targets for process performance: Unit cost, capacity, quality
levels, critical tolerances or other operating characteristics. The goal is to Zind a process
that either optimizes the efZiciency or produces the product to a lower cost. Integrated
problem solving is essential for successful process development. There are three stages
in the process development: Process research, pilot development and commercial
startup.
The process research stage deZines the basic structure of the process. The main idea is to
describe the architecture and a holistic view of the process rather than explaining it in
detail. This stage would in product development be called concept development.
In the pilot development stage the process is scaled up to some intermediate scale,
selecting re-‐creation parameters, as timing, temperature and pressure. This would
optimize the efZiciency of the process. The stage relies on data on how production
actually runs, rather than theories as in the previous stage.
The commercial start-‐up, involves not only scaling up the process to a functional stage,
but also adapting it to the plant where the product will be produced. In this phase
unanticipated problems often arise.
2.6 Customer involvement
Sandén (2007) states the customer involvement can be deZined in two ways;
1. Customer involvement includes all communication with the customer in relation
with the product development process.
2. The company tries to identify needs which the client is not aware of. It also
attempt to investigate needs that are difZicult to concretize. The most important
advantage with customer involvement is to identify these latent needs.
6(20)
Kaulio (1998) deZines three types of customer involvement; Product development for
the customer, product development with the customers and product development by the
customers.
Product development for the customer.This approach focuses on products that are designed on behalf of the customers. Data on
users, general theories and models of customer behavior are used as a basis for the
design. The approach includes speciZic studies of customers, such as interviews or focus
groups. The product development process is based on customer data. Quality function
deployment is a customer involvement method for the customer. Quality function
deployment is deZined as “A system to secure that customer needs drive the product
design and production process.” Customers are only involved in the initial face of the
product development process. The thoughts and preferences of the customers are
interpreted by designers and put into product characteristics, Sullivan (1986). The
designer is the driver of product development and the customer is only a source of data.
Product development with the customers.This approach is focusing on the customer, using data on customer preferences,
requirements and needs. Concepts and prototypes of solutions to customer needs are
presented to customers so that they can tell if it would really be a solution to their needs.
The approach uses a formal dialog with the customers.
Concept testing is one of the methods categorized under “product development with the
customer”. The method involves the customer in the early stages of the product
development. It is mostly used for consumer packaged goods and durables, but also for
industrial products. To facilitate the response of the customer the presentation of the
product should offer a realistic description of the proposed product, using sketches,
mock-‐ups and prototypes. To receive reactions on its functions and features, customers
evaluates product ideas and the Zirm implements changes needed; Moore (1982).
A second method is beta testing. The beta test is applied in the latter stages of the
product development process and aims at determining if the product satisZies
customers. The beta test is commonly used in software engineering and is a type of Zield
test, including the collection of information, using observations or historical studies. It is
7(20)
recommended that beta testing is not be the only method to get feedback from the
customers, as the reZlections of the customers would be given too late in the product
development process; Dolan & Matthews (1993).
A third method is user-‐oriented development; it is a human factors/ergonomics
engineering approach to product design. A systematic analysis of the relation between
user, product, task and environment leads to an initial problem analysis. The analysis
focuses usage requirements, rather than product features. Several prototypes are Zield-‐
tested on customers and then modiZied by designers. The designer plays a crucial role in
this method. The Zield of applications is diverse, including the design of military outZits,
interior design and hand tools; Kaulio (1998).
Product development by the customers.This approach is focusing on customer participation; the customers do not only share
their problems, needs and wants, but participate actively in Zinding solutions. Customers
have a more active role and are engaged in the process of developing solutions to their
needs. It is done using small focus groups, not one-‐to-‐one interviews. Two customer
involvement methods included here are;
Consumer idealized design; a method emphasizing customer involvement in the
conceptual design stage. It is the second stage of the design process, where the physical
solutions have to Zit the design speciZications; Hsu & Woo (1998). It focuses on early
customer involvement, by using an exercise similar to focus groups. Participants are
carefully picked from the target market. To achieve the best result the group should be as
diverse, as possible. The basic idea behind the approach is to get the customer to forget
existing products and ignore the feasibility of the design. Each session begins with a
blank piece of paper. The role of the customer is to identify the basic requirements and
actively Zind new solutions to their own needs; Cincianntelli & Magdisson (1993).
A second method is the lead user method. Von Hippel & Urban (1998) argue that the
lead-‐user method is the best way to get solution data. Lead users are faced with needs
that often will become general. Lead-‐users face them months or years before the bulk of
the market. Lead-‐users are positioned to beneZit massively by Zinding a solution of those
needs. The lead-‐user method is carried out in a four-‐step process:
8(20)
1. Specifying lead user indicators.2. Identifying lead user groups.3. Generating concepts or products with lead users.4. Testing lead user concepts on ordinary users
Figure 1. Customer Involvement Methods, after Kaulio (1998)
Success in product development through customer involvementIf used correctly customer involvement give competitive advantage. Alam (2002)
describes the beneZits of customer involvement in product development as follows:
1. Reduced cycle time. To compete in a fast moving market it is often important that the development process is fast.
2. User education. The user can be educated about the use of the product and its attributes.
3. Rapid diffusion. An early marketing push of the product can lead to earlier acceptance on the market.
4. Improved public relations can be accomplished before the product hits the market.
5. Long-‐term relationship can be created through producer-‐user relationships.6. Superior and differentiated services, customer involvement can lead to
products with unique beneZits and better value for the user.
Negative aspects of customer involvementCompanies not involving customers, often excuses themselves by the cost; both indirect
and direct costs. The number of clients is relevant; can a company please all? Lagrosen
(1995) mentions as a reason given for not using customer involvement is having too few
clients.
According to Alam (2002) reasons for not using customer involvement are:
1. The organizational structure and culture hamper customer involvement and make companies reluctant to its beneZits.
2. Customer involvement is difZicult and complicated.3. Perceived increased workload, demanding more resources in time and
money.4. Perceived increased uncertainty of the project; as client behavior is
unknown.5. Customers might steal the product ideas.6. Customers do not have the right knowledge.
9(20)
Each company has to weigh the positive and the negative aspects and decide what is best
for them. The aspects must be analyzed economically and weighed against increased
proZits; Alam (2002).
2.7 State of the art
Dominating theory Many authors argue that a successful product development is accomplished through
customer involvement; Lagrosen, (2005), Kaulio (1998), Pitta et al (1996), Matzler &
Hinterhuber (1997). Von Hippel & Urban (1988), Von Hippel, (2001) states that
knowing; understanding and working with customers are essential factors for successful
product development. Alam states 6 factors that make product development more
successful through involving customers; Echeverri (2005), Kristensson (2008), Trevor
(2004).
Emerging theory
In a study examining the effects of environmental contexts, such as technological
turbulence, Richard & Xiaohuba (2004) found that customer involvement in product
development is positively predicted by product complexity and formalization and
negatively by decentralization. The role of product complexity and the implementation
of customer orientation have received little attention in literature; Richard & Xiaohuba
(2004), supported by Biligin (2006) and Ngamkroekjoti (2008).
2.8 Research Ques=onsThis article intend to give validation to the emerging theory of Richard & Xiaohuba
(2004) and/or propose a new theory about value added (here measured by high
production cost and/or high product complexity and high production cost combined as
variables positively predicting a higher degree of customer involvement in product
development.
Model for analysisCustomer involvement is known to increase the chances for a successful product
development; Von Hippel, E. & Urban, G.L (1988), Lagrosen (2005), Pitta et al (1996) and
Matzler & Hinterhuber (1997).
10(20)
Many Zirms do not involve customers in their product development. Why? Can it be
shown that high customer involvement is driven by high product complexity and high
production cost?
The model demonstrates the possible effect of product complexity and/or production
cost and the variables combined could have on customer involvement in product
development. The success of product development will not be investigated in this thesis,
but is the intended end-‐result of using customer involvement.
HypothesisH1: High product complexity, CO, positively predicts the use of high customer involvement,
CI, in the product development; CI=a*CO+z.
H2: High value-added (production cost), VA, positively predicts the use of high customer involvement in the product development; CI=b*VA+x.
H3: High production cost and high product complexity together positively predicts the use of high customer involvement; CI=a*CO+b*VA+y.
Figure 2. Research Model.
3. MethodThe study was made with surveys sent per e-‐mail. Most respondents where contacted by
phone. The investigated population are the Swedish wood component suppliers.
3.1 Sampling/selec=onThe Swedish Wood and Furniture Association (Trä och möbelförbundet,) have 63 wood
component suppliers registered today; excluding packing, pallets and wood carpentries’
11(20)
suppliers. We also excluded companies mostly selling end products to end consumers. Of
these 63 companies we have spoken to 55 on the phone, to which the survey was sent.
The remaining 8 was not reached. We received 36 surveys. However the internal losses
where important; only 50% of the surveys where testable.
3.2 Pre-‐studyWe made a pre-‐study, interviewing some industry representa4ves, to get a deeper insight
into how the companies conduct product development and to be9er understand the
concepts involved. One of the interviews was with Per and Johan Andersson at Thomas Frick
AB, a wood machine supplier. The second interview was conducted with a wood component
supplier, ESS ENN. To ensure that the survey ques4ons were properly phrased and
understood, we tested them in these interviews. The interviews gave informa4on on
different types of suppliers, which would improve the understanding of the answers to the
survey.
To obtain informa4on about the current situa4on on the Swedish glued edge pine panel
market, we also made a telephone interview with Bengt Friberg at the Swedish Wood &
Furniture Associa4on.
3.3 Opera=onaliza=on
Customer involvementCustomer involvement is clearly important. The main ques4on is whether customer
involvement is used in product development. It is important to know as it is a building stone
of the hypotheses. Sub-‐ques4ons 1.3 and 1.5 are based on the theory of Alam (2002). The
reasons why companies use or do not use customer involvement are important for the
analysis. It could tell us how the companies think about customer involvement in product
development. Sub-‐ques4on 1.1 refers to the five different methods of customer
involvement.
To operationalize customer involvement, we used Kaulio’s (1998) categories:
1. None.
The company does not use customer involvement in product development.
12(20)
2. Product development for the customer.
This approach focuses on products designed on behalf of the customers and not letting
the customer inZluence the actual product development in an active way. Customer visits,
product customization, conversations and consultations fall under the product
development for the customer approach.
3. Product development with the customer
This approach is focusing on the customer, using data on customer preferences,
requirements and needs. Concepts and prototypes of customer needs are presented so
customers can tell if they would be solutions to their needs. The approach is used to
keep a formal dialog with customers. Product testing and product development meetings
are categorized under product development with the customer approach.
4. Product development by the customer.
The approach is focusing customer participation; the customers do not only share their
problems, needs and wants, but participate actively in Zinding a solution. Customers have
a more active role and are engaged in the process of developing solutions to their needs.
Production cost
The question is asked to see the total cost of the product. It is crucial for hypothesis 2 as
it predicts that production cost per unit is a variable for choosing customer involved
product development. The question is based on Anderson’s (2008) the theory of cost
price. We have operationalized production cost in an interval scale.
The different production costs were be classiZied accordingly:•Group 1: ≤10 SEK•Group 2: 11-‐100 SEK•Group 3: 101-‐1000 SEK•Group 4: 1001-‐10.000 SEK•Group 5: 10001-‐100.000 SEK•Group 6: 100.001–1.000.000 SEK•Group 7: ≥1.000.00 SE
Product complexity1.1 How many components does this product consist of?
1.2 When was this product launched?
1.3 How many work operations are need to complete the production process?
13(20)
These three questions have a common purpose to determine the product complexity.
Product complexity is the main theory and basis for hypothesis 1. The questions are
composed according to the deZinition made by Eppinger & Novak (2001). How many
work operations that are needed, is asked to Zind out the interrelation of the
components; a crucial factor in measuring product complexity, Eppinger & Novak
(2001).
Product complexity is divided into three parts, Eppinger & Novak (2001):
1. The number of product components to specify and produce.
2. The number of interactions to manage between these components, named parts
coupling.
3. The degree of product novelty. The third question is substituted with the development
pace of products within the company.
We have categorized product complexity in the following way:
Low complexity
The product consists of: 1-‐10 components.The manufacturing process consists of: 1-‐25 work operations.Number of developed products the last 10 years: 0-‐25 products
Medium complexity
The product consists of: 1-‐10 components.The manufacturing process consists of: 1-‐25 work operations.Number of developed products the last 10 years: ≥ 26 products.The product consists of: 11-‐100 components.The manufacturing process consists of: 1-‐25 work operations.Number of developed products the last 10 years: 0-‐5 products.
High complexity
The product consists of: 11-‐100 components.The manufacturing process consists of: 1-‐25 work operations.Number of developed products the last 10 years: ≥6 products.The product consists of: 101-‐1000 components.The manufacturing process consists of: 0-‐10 work operations.Number of developed products the last 10 years: 0-‐50 products.
Very high Complexity
The product consists of: ≥ 101 components.
14(20)
The manufacturing process consists of: ≥ 0-‐10 work operations.Number of developed products the last 10 years: ≥ 51 products.
Based on the theory of product complexity by Eppinger & Novak (2001), we
operationalize complexity based on a classiZication of the information on the number of
produced products, work operations and components. The combinations of these three
variables are used to distinguish three levels of complexity as visualized in the following
matrix.
Number of components 1-10Number of components 1-10 Number of components 11-100operations 0-10 operations 11-25 operations 0-10
Number of new products 0-5 19 3 1Number of new products 6-25 6 3 1Number of new products 26-50 1 1
Low complexity
Medium complexity
High complexity
Figure 3. Complexity, number of Xirms
4. Empirical data
4.1 Survey results 36 Zirms, 57,1% of a population of 63 wood component manufacturers in Sweden,
answered our survey. Of the respondents, 87.5% have some kind of product
development.
Wood component suppliers are likely to perceive themselves as customer focused
companies. If the company’s perception is the same as the perception of their customers’
is not known.
Customer involvementMost wood component suppliers perceive themselves as actively involving customers in
the product development. 17.2% of the wood component suppliers do not use customer
involvement.
15(20)
Knowing what kind of customer involvement the suppliers use demonstrate the way they
perceive “ac4ve customer involvement” and “customer involvement to some extent”. For the
wood component companies “product development for the customers” is the most
common.
The reasons for involving customers or not are important for the analysis. The most
important for the wood component suppliers, is to create long-‐term rela4onship with the
customers; 28.6%. Crea4ng new ideas is also seen as important. Many wood component
suppliers see customer involvement as a way to cut produc4on 4me. The “Others” column
includes: educa4ng the customer, 11.8%, be9er PR, 4.1%. To secure direct demand from the
customer and receive customer point-‐of-‐view each receive answers from 1% of the
respondents. 25% of the companies that do not use customer involvement believe it is
too difZicult and complex.
5. AnalysisThe Hypotheses were tested with regression analysis.
Hypothesis 1, Complexity: CI=+0,149*CO+0,511. The explanatory value is only 5%, The
signiZicance 0,362.
Hypothesis 2, Cost:CI=0,169*VA + 0,238. The explanatory value is low, only 12%. The
signiZicance is only 0,155.
Hypothesis 3, Cost & Complexity: CI=-‐0,137*CO+0,163*VA+0,306. The explanatory value
of the model is small, only 17%. Of course, because of the small sample size the
signiZicance is only 0,256.
6. ConclusionsBack to the drawing table. Not only is the response frequency too low, but the
explanatory value is low and the relationship between product complexity seems to be
negative, contrary to our hypothesis. Why is that? We don’t think our operationalizations
are wrong or bad. Rather the study, although limited, indicates that the emerging
theories we based our hypothesis on where of limited value or even incorrect.
Future research
16(20)
We also tried to study European and US manufacturers of machines for the wood
component industry; an industry with much more complex products. However, we only
got answers from 18 firms of a popula4on of 80, 22.5%. The answers indicate that the
relation might be much more complicated. As complexity grows, the involvement of
customers seem to decrease again; possibly as their knowledge becomes less relative
that of the manufacturers.
7. References
7.1 LiteratureAndersson, J. (2008), Kalkyler som Beslutsunderlag. Studentlitteratur, 6th edition.Archer, T., Kristensson, P. & Gustafsson, A. (2004), Harnessing the Creative Potential among Users, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21:4 – 14.
Alam, I. (2002), An Exploratory Investigation of User Involvement in New ServiceDevelopment, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3 pp. 250-‐263
Avlonitis, G.J. & Papastathopoulous, P. (2001), The Development Activities of Innovative and Non-‐Innovative New Retail Financial Products: Implication for Success, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17, pp. 705-‐738.
Beskow, C. & Ritzèn, S. (2000), Performing changes in Product development: A framework with Keys for Industrial Application, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 12, p.p. 172-‐190.
Bilgin, M. (2006), On civilized plurality: mapping the clash of civilizations within the market, Futures (UK), Emerald Management Reviews, vol 38, No 3.
Brown, S.L & Esienhardt, K.M (1995), Product development: Past research, Present Findings and Future Directions, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, p.p. 343-‐378.
Chapman, R. & Hyland, P. (2004), Complexity and learning behaviors in product innovation, Technovation, Vol. 24, p.p. 553-‐561.
Cicianntelli, S. & Magdisson, J. (1993), From Experience: consumer idealized design: Involving consumer in the product development process, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 10, No. 4, p.p. 341-‐347.
Cooper, R. & Kaplan, R.S. (1988), Measure Cost Right: Make the Right Decisions, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, No. 5, p.p. 96, 103.
Dolan, R.J. & Matthews, J. (1993), Maximizing the utility of customer product testing: Beta design and management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 9, p.p. 318-‐330.
Echeverri, P., (2005), Video-‐based methodology: capturing real-‐time perceptions of customer processes, International Journal of Service Industry Management, vol 16, issue, 2, page 199-‐209.
Eppinger, S. D. & Novak, S. (2001), Sourcing by design: Product Complexity and the Supply Chain, Management Science, Vol. 47, No. 1, p.p. 189-‐204.
Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P. & O'Keefe, R.D., (1984), Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation, Management Science, June 1984, Vol 30, issue 6.
17(20)
Fredriksson, Y. (2003), Samverkan mellan träkomponenttillverkare och stora byggföretag. Licentiatuppsats, Institutionen för Väg-‐ och vattenbyggnad. Avdelningen för Träbyggnad Luleå Tekniska Universitet. 2003:69, ISSN 1402-‐1757, 2003.
Gounaris, S. P. & Avlonitis, G. J. (2001), Market orientation development: a comparison of industrial vs consumer goods companies, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Volume 16, issue 5, page 354, 381.
Hanna, N., Ayers, D.J., Ridnour, R.E., Gordon, G.L. (1995), New product development practice in consumer vs. business products organizations, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4, No 1, p.p. 33-‐55.
Hlavacek, J. (1980), Business schools need more industrial marketing, Marketing News, Vol. 13 No April.
Hovgaard, A. & Hansen, E. (2004), Innovativeness in the forest products industry, Forest products Journal, Forest Products Society, Vol. 54, No. 1, p.p. 26-‐34.
Hsu, W. & Woo, I.M.Y. (1998), Current research in the conceptual design of mechanical products, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 377-‐389.
Johansson, B. S. & Pihlqvist, H-‐E. (2004), Trämanufaktur det systembrytande innovationssystemet. VINNOVA Analys, VA 2004:02. ISBN: 91-‐85084-‐08-‐5. ISSN1651-‐355X
Johnson, G. & Scholes, W.R., Exploring Corporate Strategy, 7th edition, 2005
Kaulio, M.A. (1998), Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: A framework and a review of selected methods, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, p.p. 141-‐49.
Krause, D.R. (1997), Success factors in supplier development, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, 1997, pp. 39-‐52.
Kristensson, P., Matthing, J. & Johansson, N., (2008), Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-‐creation of new technology-‐based services, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol 19, issue 4 page 474-‐ 491.
Lagrosen, S. (2005), Customer involvement in new product development. A relationship marketing perspective, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, p.p. 424-‐436.
Marx, K, (186X; 1932) Resultate des unmittelbares Produktionsproßesses, Neue Kritik, Frankfurt, 1969.
Matzler, K. & Hinterhuber, H.H. (1997), How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano´s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment, Technovation, Vol. 18, No. 1, p.p. 25-‐38.
McQuiston, D.H. (2004), Successful branding of a commodity product: The case of RAEX LASER steel, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, p.p. 345-‐354.
Moore, W.L. (1982), Concept testing, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 10, p.p. 279-‐294.
Ngamkroeckjoti, C & Speece, M. (2008), Technology turbulence and environmental scanning in Thai food new product development, Asia PaciXic Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Volume 20, Issue 4, page 413 -‐ 432.
Noro, K. & Imada, A. (1991), Participatory Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London.
18(20)
O´Conner, G.C. (1998), Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15 no. 2. pp. 151-‐166.
Pisano, G. & Wheelwright, S. (1995), The New Logic of High-‐Tech R&D, Harvard Business Review.
Ryan, B., Joiner, B., Ryan, J.R. (1985), Minitab Handbook, Second Edition. PWS-‐KENT Publishing Company, Boston.
Pitta, D.A., Franzak, F., Katasanis, P.L. (1995), RedeZining new product development teams: learning to actualize consumer contributions, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 5, No. 6, p.p. 48-‐60.
Ricardo, D. (1817; 1921), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 3rd ed., London, John Murray.
Richard, G. & Xiaohua, L. (2004), Antecedents to Customer Involvement in Product Development: Comparing US and Chinese Firms, European Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, p.p. 244-‐255.
Rosnow, R.L. & Rosenthal, R. (2005), Beginning Behavioral Research, Pearson Education, 5th edition.
Sandén, B. (2007), The Customer’s Role in New Service Development, Doctoral thesis, University of Karlstad. Karlstad: Karlstad Univ. Press (Karlstad University studies: 14)
Schumpeter, J. A., (1907), Das Rentenprinzip in der Verteilungslehre, Schmollers Jahrbuch.
Sloman, J. & Hinde, K. (2007), Economics For Business, Pearsson Education, 4th Edition.
Sraffa, P., (1960) Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory, Cambridge University Press
Sullivan, L.P. (1986), Quality Function Deployment, Quality Progress, Vol. 31, p.p. 39-‐50.
Sundström, P. (2005), Innovativeness in product development - Studies on industrial project work, Doctoral thesis Department of Machine Design Royal Institute of TechnologySE-‐100 44 Stockholm, TRITA – MMK 2005:12, ISSN 1400-‐1179, ISRN/KTH/MMK/R-‐05/12-‐SE
Trost, J. (2007), Enkätboken, Studentlitteratur, 3rd Edition.
Ulrich, K.T. & Eppinger, S.D. (2000), Product design and development, McGraw –Hill, New York, NY.
Von Hippel, E. & Urban, G.L (1988), Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products, Management Science, Vol. 34, No 5, p.p. 569-‐582.
Von Hippel, E. (2001), Perspective: User toolkits for innovation, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, pp 247-‐257.
7.2 Internethttp://www.ensisjv.com (011208)http://www.woodwisdom.Zi/en (011208)http://www.vinnova.se/Verksamhet/Produktframtagning/Wood-‐Material-‐Science-‐and-‐Engineering/Programbeskrivning (011208)http://www.forest-‐tech.net (011208)http://www.vinnova.se (011208)http://www.esbri.se/artikel_visa.asp?id=227 (011208)
19(20)
http://www.ft.com (Marketing: The need to get under the skin of the consumer)http://www.ltu.se/arb/d1691/d1752/d3669/1.2490 (Technology university of Luleå)https://www.ltu.se/forskning/1.16009?l=en&pureId=196688&pureFamily=dk.atira.pure.families.publication.shared.model.Publication (Ekberg, K. (2005), Design investments in small wood manufacturing companies : problems and possibilities of using design expertise in product development, Technology university of Luleå.)
20(20)
![Analisis Tweed, Wits, & Wendel Wylie [Edited]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/577c84041a28abe054b73735/analisis-tweed-wits-wendel-wylie-edited.jpg)
