Digital Product Innovation in Manufacturing Industries - Towards a Taxonomy for Feedback-driven Product Development Scenarios

Abstract

In

Understanding Usage Data-Driven Product Planning: A Systematic Literature Review

“…The data collection approach can either be reactive and thus be driven by concrete events (e.g. machine failures) or it can be proactive by collecting data on a large scale and analyzing it exploratorily (Holler et al, 2016b;Holler et al, 2017). 2.…”

“…2. Using cyber-infrastructure (van Horn et al, 2012), the captured usage data are fed back into the product creation process (Porter and Heppelmann, 2014;Jun et al, 2007), where they are valuable in all stages (Holler et al, 2017;Hou and Jiao, 2020;Jun et al, 2007), but offer the highest value in the early stages like product planning as these are characterized by lots of uncertainties and the determination of lifecycle costs (Holler et al, 2016b;Holler et al, 2017). Here, the data are used to objectively quantify product performance and usage profiles (van Horn et al, 2012) to find usage-centric improvements for the product under consideration (Holler et al, 2016b;Holmström Olsson and Bosch, 2013;Jun et al, 2007;Hou and Jiao, 2020;van Horn et al, 2012).…”

How to develop IoT products: a technology company case study

“…Despite the need for adapting from traditional NPD to IoT product development (KIRITSIS, 2011;NAMBISAN, 2013;DAWID et al, 2017;HOLLER et al, 2017;SIGNIFICANT;, it has not been yet possible to identify in the literature a report that compiles, combines or structures those adaptations, neither an NPD model focused on smart products. With that purpose, the study developed by Cavalcante and Fettermann (2019) presents a compilation of the adaptations and emphases given to each activity proposed by Rozenfeld et al (2006), resulting in a total of 1627 recommendations for IoT product development.…”

“…The literature on the development of IoT products suggests incorporating alongside the product hardware architecture the structures related its software and service definitions (BOUGDIRA; AHAITOUF; AKHARRAZ, 2016;HOLLER;UEBERNICKEL;BRENNER, 2016;TAKENAKA et al, 2016). The software definition recommendations refer to the architecture of applications (TAN; NG; LOW, 2017), platforms (THAMES; SCHAEFER, 2016), and communication protocols aimed at IoT devices (most significant; RAHMAN; SHAH, 2016).…”

“…This scenario pushes companies into an agile adaptation of their PDP for the development of smart products. Previous research indicates that developing an IoT product requires a set of activities that differ from those used to develop an ordinary product (KIRITSIS, 2011;NAMBISAN, 2013;DAWID et al, 2017;HOLLER et al, 2017), but these activities are not yet organized into a systematic process for developing smart products (HOLLER; UEBERNICKEL; BRENNER, 2016).…”