MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

General Risks of CRM&N Product Development Process: A Case Study of a Medical Device Manufacturing Company

2023· article· en· W4386641426 on OpenAlexaff
Zechu Ren, Shiyang Su, Wanqi Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Economics Management and Political Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNew product developmentProduct (mathematics)BusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Production (economics)Medical equipmentService (business)Process (computing)Operations managementWorkloadSample (material)Process managementComputer scienceEngineeringMarketingMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, every new product development process is bound to have certain risks. This study will analyze the identification and control risks in the Cardiac Rhythm Management & Neuromodulation (CRM&N) product development process of a medical device manu-facturing company in the United States and summarize and analyze the common risks dur-ing New Product Development Process (PDP). CRM&N system of medical industry prod-uct and service institutions, namely the CRM&N system used by medical devices, medical equipment, medical consumables, biotechnology and other medical products/services en-terprises. The medical industry is facing many problems in transportation and terminal sales. This study adopts the case analysis method, through the analysis of a new product development case of a company, the research results of this study are obtained: (1) Risk should be controlled at every step of a new product from the preparation before production to the end of production. Therefore, the company needs to establish a complete risk man-agement system to reduce the existence of some risks as far as possible. (2) Large sample size and heavy testing workload in the process of new product development led to in-creased costs. Therefore, companies need to use new statistical methods to analyze large sample data and reduce development costs. This study makes an in-depth analysis of the risks that may occur in the process of the company's new product development and draws some useful conclusions and strategies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Economics Management and Political SciencesSame topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207