|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
Product development in the corporate setting is vastly different from a small entrepreneurial venture. Generally, large organizations focus large amounts of development resources competing against incumbents in terms of product improvements (Dolan, 1993). Therefore, product development resource allocation of the established firm is less focused on brand new technology than on incremental improvements to existing technology (Acs and Audretsch, 1998). In contrast, product development resources of a small entrepreneurial firm are generally allocated to the development of a completely new product, since there may not be an established product line (Acs and Audretsch, 1990).
While entrepreneurs are generalists with a variety of skills, they may not be completely proficient at any one (Lazear, 2004). This preliminary paper addresses the steps necessary to bring an idea from a concept to a working prototype. For the venture lacking technical personnel or for business and entrepreneurship educators who are not proficient in developing prototypes, this paper relays established product development concepts in the technical community to nontechnical entrepreneurs.
Educational Gap
In the professional setting, multidisciplinary group approaches are most common in new product development. Personnel from each function (R&D, marketing, etc.) are brought together through multidisciplinary groups and the allocation of tasks (Millman, 1982). The intent of the multidisciplinary product design group is for technical and market-based issues to be resolved concurrently, ensuring that development does not occur in isolated vacuums. Recent research has shown the benefits of linking marketing and engineering decisions while maintaining their disciplinary identity (Michalek, Feinberg, and Papalambros, 2004; Kim et al, 2002). Therefore, better insight into the engineering function of the product development process should enhance a product's success since "planning decisions made without engineering input may yield inferior or infeasible solutions" (Michalek, Feinberg, and Papalambros, 2004).
For the entrepreneurial venture, it is imperative that the project initiator understand the design and prototype development process in order to establish timelines, milestones, and budgets. As product development efforts move toward these multidisciplinary teams comprising individuals of various technical and nontechnical backgrounds such as business and law, "recent college graduates are rarely prepared to effectively perform in such environments due to a lack of experience with true multidisciplinary teams" (Okudan and Zappe, 2006). In response, multidisciplinary approaches in the educational setting have emerged to give engineering students basic business fundamentals and to give nonengineering students working knowledge of the design process (Crismond 2001, Okudan and Zappe, 2006). This work contributes to the multidisciplinary design literature by linking fundamental marketing, finance, and legal topics to various stages in the prototype development process for the benefit of nontechnical entrepreneurial inventors, educators, consultants, and small business owners and managers, as well as those interested in applied research.
Technical Talent
For the entrepreneurial venture lacking necessary personnel, acquiring the skill sets needed to launch the venture is a critical first step (Vozikis, Mescon, and Feldman, 2008). This paper uses the term "engineer" to describe individuals who work in a technical capacity to design, develop, or formulate new products. In terms of product development, an engineer is concerned with a product's creation through concept to final production. According to the American Heritage Dictionary (2004), engineering is the application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.
The first comparative study of product success and failure, the Scientific Activity Predictor from Patterns of Heuristic Origins (SAPPHO) was conducted in the early 1970s by Rothwell (1972 and 1974) while studying the chemical and scientific instrument industries. The study concluded that product success was primarily related to the following five factors: 1) understanding user needs, 2) attention to marketing and publicity, 3) efficiency of development, 4) effective use of outside technology and external scientific communication, and 5) seniority and authority of managers responsible for product development. For the entrepreneurial venture lacking technical talent, the acquired technical resource will be intimately concerned with understanding the intended user's needs, efficiently developing the product, and effectively using outside technology and scientific communication--three of the five factors identified by Rothwell.
Quoting the Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, "Engineering is the art of doing for 10 shillings what any fool can do for a pound." An engineer's main concern with a new product's development is the efficient allocation of resources to solve the problem at hand. To ensure the appropriate allocation of development resources when creating a prototype, only those individuals who are technically competent for the prototype development should be selected. Determining technical competency, however, lies entirely with the individual in question. Technical competence is addressed in the codes of ethics of many engineering professional societies (ACM, 1999; ASME, 2006; IEEE, 2006; AIChE, 2003). Due to the sometimes hazardous consequences of inadequate design, engineering societies have emphasized the importance of pursuing work only in areas of one's technical competence. An engineer may obtain professional licensure, but it is the responsibility of the engineer to work in areas of technical competence; no governing body or regulatory agency restricts the type of work the engineer may pursue. Consequences of failing to work in...
|
