Assessment of risk propagation during different stages of new product development process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Product Development Process (NPD) is a key aspect of launching new and innovative products in the market. Many products fail in the market because of technical risks, financial risks and product development time risks. It is very important to understand the overall risk factors associated with different stages of product development so that risks can be mitigated effectively. This paper presents a methodology to understand the risk associated with the initial stages of NPD. Design flexibility is higher in initial design stages requiring minimum redesign efforts and costs. It is a great opportunity to deal with risk factors and uncertainties in initial design stages than the later design stages. Product development costs in initial stages are around 5 to 10 percent but impact is 70 to 80 percent so exploration assessment in initial stages of NPD can be hugely beneficial. Stage-wise risk assessment will also provide the details of risk associated with each stage, which will be helpful in implementing appropriate mitigation strategies. Since transition from one stage to another stage of NPD is independent of the previous stage, different NPD stages can be easily expressed by the transition state of the Markov process. In this paper, the Markov process has been used for the risk assessment of initial stages of NPD, keeping mitigation strategies in mind. The three initial stages of NPD considered in this study include the concept design, detailed design and integration & testing stages. This paper also explores a method by integration of quality function deployment (QFD) and Markov process, to understand risk patterns associated with several complete design solutions (CFDs). By using QFD, the mapping between customer requirements can be reflected into risk assessment of complete design solutions (CFDs). This methodology has been demonstrated by a case study on Coffee Maker.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".