Development of New Product/Process Development Procedure for SMEs

Abstract

The result of our research is a developed and implemented set of activities for new process or product development (NPD procedure) for SMEs environment in the plastic processing industry, which enables the production of products and services with a high value added. The developed NPD procedure consists of five consecutive and overlapping steps: attracting orders, designing a project, developing a product, developing a process and zero production series. Each distinct step is further divided into sub-activities supported by adequate methods and managed in an information system. Investigated and included were three different methodologies use for NPD procedure in the automotive industry such as Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP), Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) and Stage/Gate methodology. The results presented in the paper show that the developed NPD procedure significantly improved NPD in terms of cost management and time-effectiveness.

Analysis of Innovation Strategies to Increase the Competitive Advantages of Ulos Products in Pematangsiantar City

“…Finally, because the products and services being traded are guided by the seller's point of view rather than the market's or buyer's point of view, so that the sale becomes less desirable or which at first is still in demand but along with changes and lack of innovation, The market tends to look for substitute products that are more capable of meeting their needs. Based on the research results by Senk, et al, (2010), developing and marketing products requires adequate skills and information so that initiatives emerge to create new products to maintain business growth. It is better if the government can partner or collaborate with educational institutions (eg universities) as an extension of the hand to dig up information related to market needs through interviews, distributing questionnaires, or digital media so that business actors can adjust the products sold to market demand.…”

The retrospective determination of process improvement's economic value at the individual manufacturing firm level: Literature review and proposed measurement framework

“…Šenk, Metlikovič, Maletič, and Gomišček (2010). “Development of new product/process development procedures for SMEs,” Organizacija .…”

“…Lower capital assets via inventory reductions were claimed in five firms (Billesbach, 1994; Czabke et al, 2008; Kaplinsky, 1994; Lander & Liker, 2007; Mistry, 2005a, 2005b), while cost avoidance was a quantified benefit for one company that built its own equipment rather than procuring it from machine tool manufacturers (Amin et al, 2013). Only three studies quantified the impact on profits (Czabke et al, 2008; Lander & Liker, 2007; Šenk et al, 2010), although they failed to describe how the assessments had been done. This general avoidance of estimating the revenue or profit impact of PI mirrors the one expressed by Gold (1983, p. 218) based on his research on technological innovations: “It is also worth noting the seemingly universal avoidance in postinstallation evaluations of estimates of resulting contributions to profitability.”…”

“…Other examples range from articles simply stating that the firm saved a specific sum of money, but presenting no other details (e.g., Conti, 1996; Czabke et al, 2008; Hung et al, 2011; Karuppan et al, 1996; McKenzie & Jayanthi, 2007; Orbak, 2012; Prashar, 2018; Šenk et al, 2010; Su & Yang, 2015; Thomas et al, 2008; Wang & Chen, 2012), to articles providing examples of resource categories for which savings were claimed, while still leaving the reader guessing how exactly those determination were done (the remainder of the articles fall in this category).…”