Management of an Online Game Development Project

2012

ABAS

Empirical researches of new product developments began in earnest in the 1960s with the "grand approach." These researches clarified general success factors through the comprehensive analysis of successful project profiles. In the 1970s, the "focus approach" came to fore where analysis focused on specific themes in product development. The latter half of the 1980s saw the focus shift to the "process approach" where the relationship between management of product development process and performance was analyzed in detail.These trends suggest that one characteristic of product development research is a mainstream shift toward the advent of new research approaches in approximate ten-year cycles.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Product Development Research Cycle

2012

ABAS

“…The main concern of this approach is clarifying whether effective product development patterns, such as overlapping problem solving or the heavy-weight product manager (HWPM), identified by Clark and Fujimoto (1991) in the automotive industry, can be applied to other products or industries (e.g., Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995;Fujimoto & Yasumoto, 2000;Iansiti, 1998;Kuwashima, 2003;Kuwashima, Takahashi, & Tamada, 2005;Pisano, 1997;Tomita, 2009;Wi, 2008;Yasumoto & Shiu, 2007;Yoshimoto, 2009).…”

Section: Product-industry Based Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Followers of Harvard Study

2013

ABAS

A diversification of research approaches became apparent in the field of product development management in the 1990s, based on a monumental study by Clark and Fujimoto (1991) (the so-called "Harvard Study"). The following five new research approaches then came into play. The "product-industry based approach," sought to clarify effective product development management by focusing on the characteristics of products and industry. The "multi-project approach" analyzed multiple projects over single projects. The "dynamic approach" focused on the dynamic aspects of product development from the long-term perspective. The "problem-solving approach" regarded product development as a problem-solving process. The "organizational capability approach" sought to elucidate organizational capabilities that contribute to high performance in product development.

“…(e.g., Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995;Iansiti, 1998;Kuwashima, Takahashi, & Tamada, 2005;Pisano, 1997;Sato & Fujimoto, 2013;Tomita, 2009;Wi, 2008;Yasumoto & Shiu, 2007;Yoshimoto, 2009). 10 However, few research considers differences in organization types (X and Y).…”

Section: Footnote 3: Potency Of Hwpm Organization Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Footnotes to “Heavyweight Product Manager”

2013

ABAS

This paper suggests three footnotes regarding heavyweight product manager (HWPM). HWPM, a term coined by Fujimoto (1989), refers to powerful managers that act as both internal and external integrators. Footnote 1: Fujimoto (1989) used the term "product manager" for project managers responsible for product development to emphasize their long-term and wide range of responsibilities and authority, which continue even after the completion of a product development project. Footnote 2: The list of internal integration index and external integration index used to measure HWPM and the organizational variables that comprise the two are given in the Appendix of Clark and Fujimoto (1991). However, the organizational variables noted as composition factors for these indices are misprints. In fact, it is necessary to reverse the organizational variables that refer to the indices. Footnote 3: Based on their empirical study, Clark and Fujimoto (1991) classify the following two cases as "lightweight product manager structures." First is one in which "the degree of internal integration is high while that of external integration is low," and second is when "the degree of internal integration is low while that of external integration is high." However, the two product