Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA):Oehmen, J., Olechowski, A., Kenley, C. R., & Ben-Daya, M. (2014). Analysis of the effect of risk management practices on the performance of new product development programs. Technovation, 34(8), 441-453. DOI: 10.1016441-453. DOI: 10. /j.technovation.2013 Analysis of the effect of risk management practices on the performance of new product development programs Highlights Investigates the association between risk management practices and new product development program performance  Based on extensive empirical data collected through survey  Presents new framework to define risk management success in NPD programs  Identifies six categories of risk management practices associated with success  Out of 95 analysed risk management "best practices", only 30 show significant associations with success. AbstractRisk management is receiving much attention, as it is seen as a method to improve cost, schedule, and technical performance of new product development programs. However, there is a lack of empirical research that investigates the effective integration of specific risk management practices proposed by various standards with new product development programs and their association with various dimensions of risk management success. Based on a survey of 291 new product development programs, this paper investigates the association of risk management practices with five categories of product development program performance: A. Quality Decision Making, B. High program stability; C. Open, problem solving organization; D. Overall NPD project success and E. Overall product success. The results show that six categories of risk management practices are most effective: 1. Develop risk management skills and resources; 2. Tailor risk management to and integrate it with new product development; 3. Quantify impacts of risks on your main objectives; 4. Support all critical decisions with risk management results; 5. Monitor and review your risks, risk mitigation actions, and risk management process; and 6. Create transparency regarding new product development risks. The data shows that the risk management practices are directly associated with outcome measures in the first three categories (improved decision making, program stability and problem solving). There is also evidence that the risk management practices indirectly associate with the remaining two categories of outcome measures (project and product success). Additional research is needed to describe the exact mechanisms through which risk management practices influence NPD program success. KeywordsRisk management, new product development, program management Manuscript (Final Revision): Effect of Risk Management Practices

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

The technology readiness level (TRL) scale was introduced by NASA in the 1970s as a tool for assessing the maturity of technologies during complex system development. TRL data have been used to make multi-million dollar technology management decisions in programs such as NASA's Mars Curiosity Rover. This scale is now a de facto standard used for technology assessment and oversight in many industries, from power systems to consumer electronics. Low TRLs have been associated with significantly reduced timeliness and increased costs across a portfolio of US Department of Defense programs. However, anecdotal evidence raises concerns about many of the practices related to TRLs. We study TRL implementations based on semi-structured interviews with employees from seven different organizations and examine documentation collected from industry standards and organizational guidelines related to technology development and demonstration. Our findings consist of 15 challenges observed in TRL implementations that fall into three different categories: system complexity, planning and review, and validity of assessment. We explore research opportunities for these challenges and posit that addressing these opportunities, either singly or in groups, could improve decision processes and performance outcomes in complex engineering projects.2

The technology readiness level (TRL) scale was developed at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the 1970s as a standardized technology maturity assessment tool for use in complex system development. Today, TRL assessments are used to make multimillion‐dollar decisions at NASA and beyond, yet anecdotal evidence suggests that there are challenges associated with TRL use in practice. In this paper, we systematically uncover the practitioners' view, first via 19 interviews with employees from seven organizations. We identify 15 challenges of TRL implementations in three categories: system complexity, planning and review, and validity of assessment. Next, we prioritize these challenges via a survey of TRL practitioners, using a best‐worst choice experiment. Finally, we identify best practices and proposed extensions to address the challenges. We find that system complexity challenges are most critical to TRL users, despite being addressed in the literature. We posit that addressing these opportunities could result in substantial improvements to decision processes and outcomes in complex engineering projects.

No abstract