MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404708690 · doi:10.1109/emr.2024.3499749

AI in New Product Development: Opportunities, Applications, and Managerial Implications

2024· article· en· W4404708690 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Faraz Mubarak, Chris Biggadike, Eduardo Ahumada‐Tello, Richard Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Engineering Management Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNew product developmentProduct (mathematics)BusinessIndustrial organizationProcess managementEngineeringManufacturing engineeringMarketingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New product development (NPD) requires multidisciplinary collaboration between internal (e.g., designers, engineers, project managers) and increasingly external stakeholders (e.g., customers). These collaborations aim to create new products that meet market needs, deliver value to customers and end-users, and generate revenue for firms. However, the rate of NPD failure is high with traditional NPD often facing significant challenges that can limit productivity and product innovation performance; these include lengthy development cycles and limited market insights. In this context, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential collaborator for NPD teams. Much like the emergence of rapid prototyping in the 1980s, which is now widely accepted as a standard NPD tool in most engineering firms, AI promises to revolutionize NPD by improving decision-making, reducing development time, and providing deeper market insights. This article examines the current state of AI in NPD, reviewing its application across various industries and at different stages of the NPD lifecycle. In addition, this article outlines some of the key implications of AI adoption for technology and engineering managers, emphasizing the need for AI infrastructure investment, regulatory compliance, strategic planning and cultural change, cross-functional collaboration and stakeholder engagement, and employee development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Engineering Management ReviewSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207