MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388733617 · doi:10.1108/ijmpb-02-2023-0041

An exploratory investigation of performance criteria in managing and controlling new product development projects: Canadian SMEs' perspectives

2023· article· en· W4388733617 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Managing Projects in Business · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOperations Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexProcess managementBusinessNew product developmentProject managementFlexibility (engineering)Process (computing)Exploratory researchControl (management)Quality (philosophy)Product (mathematics)Small and medium-sized enterprisesReturn on investmentKnowledge managementMarketingProfit (economics)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to understand and document evaluation criteria used in the new product development (NPD) process of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to support the management and control of their NPD projects. Design/methodology/approach This study combines exploratory and explanatory methodology (case studies) involving five Canadian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that are successful in NPD. The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with nine selected managers and project managers to explore the process and evaluation criteria used to manage and control NPD projects. Findings The results highlight that cost, time and quality are key evaluation criteria used by SMEs to make decisions relative to the NPD project's success. Profitability, return on investment, expected sales and customer satisfaction are additional criteria used to evaluate NPD project's success. It has been also found that the SMEs did not consider sustainability issues in the criteria used as their focus are on the needs of stakeholders, mainly customers. Research limitations/implications Limitations: The evaluation criteria are extracted from a limited number of SMEs that have successfully carried out NPD projects and may therefore be influenced by some contextual factors. The results cannot be generalized to all SMEs or to all projects, as their characteristics may differ. Implications: This study offers a novel outlook on NPD process in SMEs, by documenting criteria related to constraints in project management. The integration of theory of constraints contributes to increasing theoretical knowledge about the management and control of NPD projects in SMEs. It provides insight into how project managers (and other decision makers) can increase the chances of project success by managing project constraints and criteria. Practical implications The evaluation criteria identified in this study can therefore be of use to SMEs managers and project leaders seeking to improve the management and control of their NPD projects. These criteria can help them better manage their limited resources and skills and allocate them to the most promising projects. They can also help them conduct their NPD process more efficiently to achieve the intended objectives, including the desired project profitability targets. Originality/value This paper offers new insight and practical implications about evaluation criteria within the stages and activities of the NPD process that needed to be considered by SMEs' managers involved in NPD projects.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.270 · 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