Premium
Remodularization of a Product Line: Adding Complexity to Project Management
Author(s) -
Lundqvist Mats,
Sundgren Niklas,
Trygg Lars
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
journal of product innovation management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.646
H-Index - 144
eISSN - 1540-5885
pISSN - 0737-6782
DOI - 10.1111/1540-5885.1340311
Subject(s) - new product development , process management , product (mathematics) , project management , project management triangle , business , task (project management) , project manager , process (computing) , product design , operations management , computer science , marketing , engineering , systems engineering , geometry , mathematics , operating system
Faced with ever‐tighter schedules, product development professionals employ various methods for staying at least one step ahead of the competition. In particular, an autonomous, cross‐functional team offers an effective structure for meeting the sometimes conflicting objectives of timely delivery of a high‐quality, easily manufactured product. To complicate matters, however, companies must manage not only individual projects, but also entire product lines. Changes in product and process technology eventually necessitate revamping of the product architecture—that is, the remodularization of a product line. Can an autonomous project team provide the long‐term perspective necessary for such efforts? Or, does remodularization of a product line require centralized oversight by functional management? Mats Lundqvist, Niklas Sundgren, and Lars Trygg explore this issue by examining product development efforts at two Swedish manufacturing companies. Specifically, their study explores this research question: Does a high degree of project autonomy limit the possibility for effective remodularization of product architecture? Both companies were involved in remodularization projects with stringent requirements for project cost and duration, but the companies employed markedly different managerial models in these efforts. One company took a centralized approach, except that two design engineers worked full time on the project. The other company used the autonomous model, with two exceptions: functional managers worked closely with some project members during the task specification phase of the project; and the project leader, though a heavyweight in many respects, did not have formal decision‐making power. The latter project demonstrated that an autonomous project team can maintain a long‐term perspective during development of a product. In other words, this project team was able to meet challenging time and cost objectives while developing a product consisting of highly compatible modules and subsystems. Although a centralized management approach might be expected to offer greater efficiency, the company using that approach failed to meet project goals for development time, product cost, and long‐term product line effectiveness. However, the shortcomings of that effort are more directly attributable to the management style of the project leader than to the management structure employed.