This paper describes the introduction, development, and proliferation of new electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). The use of non-combustible tobacco products is considered a means for improving public health and reducing the mortality attributed to cigarette smoking. The effects and use of ENDS are described, with studies to date indicating that, despite differences in toxicity, there is insufficient evidence that ENDS leads to smoking cessation. Finally, research questions are proposed to address key unanswered questions about the effects of such systems.
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to use a series of disruptive innovations in the 150‐year history of the US lighting industry to test whether two key innovation management theories retain their explanatory power as market structures change.Design/methodology/approachHistorical case studies of four successive disruptive lighting innovations are used: incandescent light bulbs, fluorescent light bulbs, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFBs) and light emitting diodes (LEDs). Descriptions of each innovation include the new technologies, the evolving market structures, and how the innovating companies managed their risks during the transitions.FindingsThis paper finds that two contemporary theories on absorptive capacity and disruptive innovations retain validity and remain broadly applicable even as market structures change overtime from oligopoly and cartel to free market competition.Originality/valueBy juxtaposing historic incandescent and fluorescent bulb innovations in constrained market conditions with modern CFB and LED innovations in free market conditions, this paper expands understanding of the lighting history to include the past two decades. It also expands the applicability of innovation theories by showing that they apply to various and changing market structures.
To create new products, firms employ a product development process (PDP) to generate new product concepts, to translate the best of these concepts into quality products, and to manage the risks inherent in bringing such new products to the market. A well-designed PDP is necessary to reduce development time, create better products, increase market share, and generate profit.This paper investigates the relationship between product development risk and PDP management and seeks to help companies improve their processes. We begin by discussing product development risks and describing a spectrum of different PDPs. We compare the traditional, rigid, staged PDP with the alternative, flexible, spiral PDP and other variants. We then propose several iteration-and review-based metrics by which PDPs can be effectively identified and compared.Data from ten company case studies exemplify a wide variety of actual PDPs, demonstrate the utility of iteration and review metrics in distinguishing PDPs, and illustrate how different processes manage different risks. Case study findings indicate that software companies face rapidly changing markets, generally perform quick iterations and tests, and are likely to employ flexible PDPs. In contrast, manufacturing companies that face greater integration difficulties and technical risks are likely to employ more rigid PDPs. We find that a company's risk profile is instrumental in determining the applicability of different PDPs. We employ the case study lessons to propose a method for improved PDP design based on risk management. To demonstrate the method, it is applied to redesign one company's PDP.We conclude that PDPs vary more than previously documented; that the proposed metrics are useful in distinguishing PDPs; and that companies facing different risk scenarios can effectively tailor their PDP designs to suit their own unique circumstances.Index terms: Product development strategy, product development process, research and development management, innovation management
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.