View of DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PRODUCT BASED ON CUSTOMER KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

(1)

72

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PRODUCT BASED ON CUSTOMER KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT

Sonil Shrivastava, Research Scholar Sandeep Kumar Dubey, Prof. S.V.H. Nagendra, Guide

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, GGITS, Jabalpur (M.P.)

Abstract- Human beings have always been tried to make new, innovative things to benefit from. The new things have been improved from a wheel to a smart car and the benefits have been improved from survival to survival plus fitness, happiness, sense of belonging, security and etc. Companies which have been following the human nature, and thinking of new, innovative products and consumers‘ benefits cohesively, could gain competitive advantages.

But the process of new product development has always been costly and due to the high failure rate it is risky. Academics and practitioners alike agree that one of the new product development failure reasons is consumers‘ non acceptance. So they try to enhance the new product development (NPD) process to reduce the consumers non acceptance.

One of the most famous tools used is Knowledge Management (KM). KM focuses on employees‘ knowledge but has little systematic attention to the customers. In order to overcome the KM limitation, the concept of Customer Knowledge Management (CKM) introduced. CKM by combining KM and customer relationship management (CRM), more clearly extract knowledge ‗for‘ customers, knowledge ‗about‘ customers, and knowledge

‗from‘ customers, so that a more beneficial product can be delivered to the right group of customers, to prevent product failure and to ensure commercial success.

In this research, review on NPD, KM and CKM are provided and new product development based on customer knowledge management has been implemented. To develop new products based on customer knowledge management framework, the customers‘

knowledge should be elicited and converted to a pattern of consumers‘ need towards the products attributes. The need patterns and consumers‘ characteristics have to be segmented to be more meaningful for marketers to target and communicate. This reduces the customer fuzziness dimension in the NPD process and elevates the likelihood of success.

The main objectives of this research include finding and implementing systematic approaches to extract customer knowledge, and finding frameworks for more involvement of customer and using customer knowledge in the idea generation phase of NPD process.

The outcome of this research is a practical framework for ―idea generation, design and development phase of new product development process using FEA based on customer knowledge toward the product (pipe support assembly).

Keywords: Customer Knowledge Management, New product development, pipe support assembly, FEA, comparision between abs plastic and aluminium, ansys, case study, people oriented approach.

1 RESEARCH PURPOSE AND QUESTION IDENTIFICATION

The main purposes of this research include:

 Introducing new models of NPD process.

 Finding and implementing systematic approaches to extract customer knowledge.

 Finding a framework for more involvement of customer and using customer knowledge in NPD process.

 Implementing the proposed framework to verify its applicability.

 Promoting usage of mixed quantitative and qualitative marketing methods.

 To reach these purposes, a framework should be developed to provide an answer to our main question:

 RQ- How firms can understand preferences and requirements of customers in order to have more successful new product development?.

(2)

73

In detail, what are the motives

behind consumer‘s preferences? Why they accept some products and why they do not accept some other products? How can we identify customers‘ requirements to be considered in NPD process? How customers can participate in NPD Process?

Here we try to introduce and improvise a recently developed concept:

Customer Knowledge Management (CKM), and to provide a framework based on CKM concepts showing the method for acquiring customer knowledge, so that the product will meet the customers‘

needs, in order to secure market acceptance.

1.1 Delimitation

New product development process has many dimensions and involves almost all parts of the firm. In this study, the focus is on:

 Customer fuzziness of NPD fuzzy front end, not technology fuzziness or competition fuzziness (based on fuzzy front end model of Zhang and Doll, 2001)

 Opportunity identification stage of NPD process not development or optimization (product testing) stages (based on stages of new product development of Van Kleef, 2006)

 NPD failures originated from extrinsic and product related variable in NPD not Intrinsic or process related variable (based on NPD problems model of Cooper, 2003)

The conceptual framework can be conducted in many different industries.

Due to intensive competition, low variety of products, access to resource for data collection from consumers, new product was selected which is pipe support assembly.

2 INTRODUCTION TO NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

New product development is an ordered and determined set of tasks and steps that describe the method by which a company repeatedly converts undeveloped ideas into commercial products or services.

There are distinct categories of new products (PDMA Handbook). Some products are new to the market, some are new to the company, and some are totally new and make totally new markets. From another point of view, some new product concepts are minor modifications of existing products while some are completely innovative to the company.

These differences are displayed in the following figure.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction

In order to gain customer knowledge according to our conceptual framework, the CKM framework, we should capture three kind of knowledge:

 Knowledge for customer

 Knowledge about customer

 Knowledge from customer

To gain all these three aspects of customer knowledge, a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods implemented.

We identified Means-end Chain theory a remarkable base for eliciting both

―knowledge for‖ and ―knowledge about‖

customer.

This stage is totally qualitative.

3.1 Research Design

The research design from marketing viewpoint is a framework or blueprint for conducting the research project that specifies the procedures necessary to obtain the information needed to structure and/or solve the research problem (Malhotra, 1996).

There are two major types of research designs: exploratory and conclusive. Conclusive research design can be further classified as: descriptive and causal. Exploratory research is to explore the problem situation by gaining ideas and insight into the problem.

Conducting in-depth interviews or focus groups could provide valuable insights but generally followed by further exploratory research. Conclusive research assists the decision maker in determining, evaluating and selecting the best course of action for a given situation (Malhotra, 1996).

Descriptive research is to describe something usually market characteristics like target market profiles, the

(3)

74

relationship between product use and

perception of product characteristics and etc. Descriptive research assumes that the researcher has the prior knowledge about the situation that is the major difference between descriptive and exploratory research (Malhotra, 1996).

Surveys, panels, secondary data analyzed quantitatively are the major data collection techniques in this type of research.

Descriptive research could be in direct connection to exploratory research, since researchers might have started off by wanting gain insight to a problem, and after having stated it; their research becomes descriptive (Saunders et al., 2000).

4 ANALYSIS OF NEW PRODUCT 4.1. Introduction

The design of a pipe assembly support have two alternative structure solutions:

pipe support made up of two different engineering materials. In this research, a real case of auxiliary structures supporting a pipeline (i.e., pipeline bridge) is studied .The material of the pipe support assembly is abs plastic and aluminium with define geometry and coordinate system.

In this research, the Structural Analysis ANSYS 2021 ‗DESIGN SOFTWARE‘ was used to determine the static and dynamic performance of structural systems and analyse the linearity and non-linearity of the system behaviour. This is a program for calculation by finite element structures that includes a wide range of design codes of all types of metal and concrete structures, with the possibility of contemplating other structural.

In this study two different material have been selected

1. ABS PLASTIC 2. ALUMINIUM

4.2 Structural analysis of ABS PLASTIC

Figure 4.1 3D Model

Figure 4.2

Model (C4)> Static Structural (C5)>

Solution (C6)> Total Deformation> Figure Figure number 4.2 (a) and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the total deformation in the component. The value is varying between 0.3837mm to 3.454 mm maximum for ABS plastic material.

Table 4.1

Model (C4)>Static Structural (C5)>

Solution (C6)> Maximum Shear Stress

(4)

75

Figure 4.3

Model (C4) > Static Structural (C5) >

Solution (C6) > Maximum Shear Stress >

Figure

Figure number 4.3 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the max shear stress deformation in the component. The value is varying between 0.9213MPa to 8.29 MPa maximum for ABS plastic material.

Table 4.2

Solution (C6) > Equivalent Elastic Strain

Figure 4.4

Solution (C6) > Equivalent Elastic Strain >

Figure

Figure number 4.4 (a) and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the equivalent elastic strain in the component. The value is varying between

0.0000743 to 0.00688 maximum for ABS plastic material.

Table 4.3

Solution (C6) > Maximum Shear Elastic Strain

Figure 4.5

Solution (C6) > Maximum Shear Elastic Strain > Figure

Figure number 4.5 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the max shear elastic strain deformation in the component. The value is varying between 0.00107 to 0.0097 maximum for ABS plastic material.

Table 4.4

Solution (C6) > X Directional Deformation

Figure 4.6

Solution (C6)> X Directional Deformation>

Figure

(5)

76

Figure number 4.6 (a)and (b) shows the

isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the directional deformation X direction in the component. The value is varying between 0.551mm to 0.237mm maximum for ABS plastic material.

Table 4.5

Model (A4)> Static Structural (A5)>

Solution (A6)> Y Directional Deformation

Figure number 4.7 (a)and (b) Figure number 4.7 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the directional deformation Y direction in the component. The value is varying between -3.3858 mm to 0.78487 mm maximum for ABS plastic material.

Table 4.7

Solution (C6) > Z Directional Deformation

Figure 4.8

Solution (C6) > Z Directional Deformation

> Figure

Figure number 4.8 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the directional deformation Z direction in the component . The value is varying between 0.784 mm to -3.38 mm minimum for ABS plastic material.

Figure 4.9

Model (C4) > Static Structural (C5)>

Solution (C6) > Equivalent Stress > Figure Figure number 4.9 (a) and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the Equivalent stress in the component. The value is varying between 15.89MPa to 1.75 MPa minimum for ABS plastic material.

Table 4.9

Solution (C6) > Maximum Equivalent Stress theory > Safety Factor

Figure number 4.10 safety factor Figure number 4.10 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the safety factor in the component. The value is varying between 2.496 to 15 maximum for ABS plastic material.

(6)

77

4.3 Structural analysis of ALUMINIUM

Alloy

Figure 4.11

Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) >

Solution (A6) > Total Deformation > Figure Figure number 4.11 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the Total deformation in the component. The value is varying between 0 mm to 0.48 mm maximum for aluminum material.

Table 4.12

Solution (A6) > Maximum Shear Stress

Figure 4.12

Model (A4)> Static Structural (A5)>

Solution (A6)> Maximum Shear Stress>

Figure F

igure number 4.12 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the Maximum shear stress in the component.

The value is varying between 3.4e-11 MPa to maximum 32.898 MPa for aluminum material.

Table 4.3.3

Solution (A6) > Equivalent Elastic Strain

Figure 4.13

Solution (A6) > Equivalent Elastic Strain >

Figure

Figure number 4.13 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the equivalent elastic strain in the component . The value is varying between 7.25e-15 to maximum 8.857e-4 for aluminum material.

Table 4.14

Solution (A6) > Maximum Shear Elastic Strain

Figure 4.14

Solution (A6) > Maximum Shear Elastic Strain > Figure

Figure number 4.14 (a) and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the Maximum shear elastic strain in the component. The value is varying between 1.28e-15 to maximum 0.00123 for aluminum material.

(7)

78

Table 4.15

Solution (A6) > X Directional Deformation

Figure 4.15

Solution (A6) > X Directional Deformation

> Figure

Figure number 4.15 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the directional deformation X direction in the component . The value is varying between -0.00928 mm to 0.00343 mm maximum for aluminum material.

Table 4.16

Solution (A6) > Y Directional Deformation

Figure 4.16

Solution (A6) > Y Directional Deformation

> Figure

Figure number 4.16 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The

contour representation shows the directional deformation Y direction in the component. The value is varying between -9.2285e-002 mm to 3.4304e-002mm maximum for aluminum material.

Table 4.17

Solution (A6) > Z Directional Deformation

Figure 4.17

Solution (A6) > Z Directional Deformation

> Figure

Figure number 4.3.7 (a) and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the directional deformation Z direction in the component. The value is varying between -0.476 mm to 0.111 mm maximum for aluminum material.

Figure 4.18

Solution (A6) > Equivalent Stress > Figure

Table 4.18

(8)

79

Solution (A6) > Equivalent Stress

Figure number 4.18 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the equivalent stress in the component. The value is varying between 6.22e-11 MPa to maximum 62.87 MPa for aluminum material.

Table 4.19

Solution (A6) > Maximum shear Stress Therory > Safety Factor

Figure number 4.19 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the safety factor in the component. The value is varying between 4.455 to maximum 15 for aluminum material.

Figure 4.20

Solution (A6) > Fatigue Tool

Figure number 4.20(a) shows the isometric of the design. The contour representation shows the total life of the component. The value is above 1e8 cycles which considerably good life for aluminum material.

Table 4.21

Solution (A6) > Fatigue Tool > Safety Factor

Figure 4.21

Solution (A6) > Fatigue Tool > Safety Factor > Figure

Figure number 4.21 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the fatigue safety factor in the component. The value is varying between 1.316 to maximum 15 for aluminum material.

Table 4.22

Solution (A6) > Fatigue Tool > Equivalent Alternating Stress

Figure 4.22

Solution (A6) > Fatigue Tool > Equivalent Alternating Stress > Figure

Figure number 4.22 (a)and (b) shows the isometric and side view of the design. The contour representation shows the

(9)

80

Equivalent alternating stress in the

component. The value is varying between 6.22e-11 MPa to maximum 62.872 MPa for aluminum material.

5 SYNOPSIS

New product development is risky and costly but could provide great competitive advantage for a company. If NPD success, then the revenue comes but if it does not success, the loss could be disruptive. The common failure rate in new product development is between 60 to 80 percent (Grunert and Valli, 2001) which is noticeable. But how to reduce the risk of failure in NPD? What factors could cause in success?

According to literature, one of the check boxes of NPD success is the consumers‘ check box. If they are involved in NPD process in a systematic way, at least one source of risk has been faded.

6 FINDINGS

The research question was: How firms can understand preferences and requirements of customers in order to have more successful new product development?

With summing up related literature, we found the e-CKM model (Su et al, 2006), is state of the art framework for this research. The e-CKM model has wisely divided the three types of customer knowledge and identified the processes for acquiring them, and exploiting the acquired knowledge for customer oriented new product development. But for implementation this framework in real business environment, the operational procedure and methods are not clearly defined. We covered this gap by providing an operational ―CKM framework for NPD‖, which is presented in figure 5-1.

REFERENCES

1. Baker S. (2004) Mapping the values driving organic food choice- Germany vs UK, European journal of marketing, 38: 8, pp.995-1012.

2. Bhatt Ganesh D. (2001) Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people, Journal of Knowledge Management, 5:1, pp. 68-75.

3. Bloom Jonathan Z. (2004) Tourist market segmentation with linear and non-linear techniques, Tourism Management, 25, pp.

723–733.

4. Bueren A., Schierholz R., L. M. Kolbe, W.

Brenner (2005) Improving performance of

customer-processes with knowledge management, Business Process Management Journal, 11:5, pp. 573-588.

5. Carneiro A. (2000) How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness?, Journal of Knowledge Management, 4:2, pp. 87-98.

6. Clark, K.B. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1995) The Product Development Challenge: Competing through Speed, Quality, and Creativity, A Harvard Business Review Book Coates N.,Robinson H. (1995) Making industrial new product development market led, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 13:65, pp. 12-15.

7. Cooper Lynne P. (2003) A research agenda to reduce risk in new product development through knowledge management: a practitioner perspective, Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 20, pp.

117–140.

8. Croteau, A.M., Li. P. (2003) Critical success factors of CRM Technological Initiatives, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20:1, pp.21–34.

9. Darroch j. (2005) Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance, Journal of knowledge Management, 9:3, pp. 101-115.

10. Dyche, J. (2002) Handbook: A Business Guide to Customer Relationship Management. Addison-Wesley Inc, Massachusetts pp. 3–18.

11. Dyche, J. (2002) Handbook: A Business Guide to Customer Relationship Management. Addison-Wesley Inc, Massachusetts, pp. 3–18.

12. Garcia-Murillo, M., Annabi, H. (2002) Customer knowledge management, Journal of Operational Research Society, 53, pp. 875–

884.

13. Gebert H., M. Geib, L. Kolbe, W. Brenner (2003) Knowledge enabled Customer Relationship Management: Integrating CRM and KM concepts, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7:5, pp. 107-123.

14. Gibbert M., M. Leibold, G. Probest (2002) Five Styles of Customer Knowledge Management, and How Smart Companies Use Them To Create Value, European Management Journal, 20:5, pp. 459–469.

15. Grover V., Davenport T. H. (2001) General perspectives on knowledge management:

fostering a research agenda, Journal of Management Information System 18:1, pp. 5–

21.

16. Grunert K.G., Valli C. (2001), Designer-made meat and dairy products: consumer-led product development, Livestock Production Science, 72, pp. 83–98.

17. Gutman J. (1982) A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes, Journal of Marketing, 46:2, pp. 60-72.

18. Han and Kamber (2006) Data mining concepts and techniques, chapter 1,2,7.

19. Hung Shin-Yuan , Yen David C., Wang Hsiu- Yu (2006) Applying data mining to telecom churn management, Expert System Application, 31:3, pp. 515-524.

20. Janssens F. (2007) CLUSTERING OF SCIENTIFIC FIELDS BY INTEGRATING TEXT MINING AND BIBLIOMETRICS, PhD dissertation.

(10)

81

21. Juran J.M., Gryna, F.M. (1993) Quality Planning and Analysis, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

22. Kean C. Aw (2005) Integrating quality and reliability assessment into product development process, A New Zealand case study, International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, 22:5, pp. 518-530.

23. Kiang Melody Y., Hu Michael Y., Fisher Dorothy M. (2006), An extended self- organizing map network for market segmentation—a telecommunication example, Decision Support Systems, 42, pp. 36– 47.

24. Kotler Philip (2003) Marketing Management, Ed. 11, Prentice-Hall, pp. 279-287.

25. Kuo R.J., Ho L.M. Ho, Hu C.M. (2002) Integration of self-organizing feature map and Kmeans algorithm for market segmentation, Computers and Operations Research, 29, pp.

1475-1493.

26. Lee S., Xiang J., Jing U. (2005) Who are the target customers in Chinese online game market?: segmentation with a two-step approach, e-Business Engineering ICEBE 2005. IEEE International Conference on, 18:

21, pp. 736 – 742.

27. Lewlyn L.R. Rodrigues, N. Dharmaraj, B.R.

Shrinivasa Rao (2006) System dynamics approach for change management in new product development, Management Research News, 29:8, pp. 512-523.

28. Liua Duen-Ren, Shiha Ya-Yueh (2004) Integrating AHP and data mining for product recommendation based on customer lifetime value, Information & Management, 42, pp.

387–400.

29. Martensson M. (2000) A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool, Journal of Knowledge Management, 4:3, pp. 204-216.

30. Maylor H., Gosling R. (1998) The reality of concurrent new product development, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 9:2, pp.

69–76.

31. Peppers D., M. Rogers (1993) The One to One Future In Gebert H., M. Geib, L. Kolbe, W.

Brenner (2003) Knowledge enabled Customer relationship Management: Integrating CRM and KM concepts, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7:5, pp. 107-123.

32. Pérez-Bustamante, G. (1999) Knowledge management in agile innovative organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management, 3:1, pp. 6–17.

33. Peters A.J., Rooney E.M., Rogerson J.H., McQuater R.E., Spring M., Dale B.G. (1999) New product design and development: a generic model, The TQM Magazine, 11:3, pp.

172–179.

34. Roelof P, Beijerse U. (1999) Questions in knowledge management: defining and conceptualizing a phenomenon, Journal of Knowledge Management, 3:2, pp. 94-109.

35. Rowly J. (2002) Eight Questions on Customer Knowledge Management in e-business,

Qualitative Market Research, 5:4, pp. 268- 280.

36. Rowly J. (2005) Reflections on Customer Knowledge Management in e-business, Journal of Knowledge Management, 6:5, pp.

500-511.

37. Russell C.G., Flight I., Leppard P., van Lawick van Pabst J.A., Syrette J.A., Cox D.N., (2004) A comparison of paper-and-pencil and computerized methods of ―hard‖ laddering, Food Quality and Preference,15, pp.279–291.

38. Sally Dibb (1998) Market segmentation:

strategies for success, Marketing Intelligence

& Planning, 16:7, page 394–406.

39. Sally Dibb, Philip Stern, Robin Wensley, (2002), Marketing Knowledge and Value of Segmentation, Marketing Intelligence &

Planning, 20:2, pp. 113-119.

40. Salomann H., M. Dous, L. Kolbe, W. Brenner (2005) Rejuvenating Customer Management:

How to Make Knowledge For, From and About Customers Work, European Management Journal, 23:4, pp. 392–403.

41. Snelson, P.A., Hart, S.J. (1991), ―Product Policy: Perspectives on Success‖, in Baker, M.J. (Ed.), Perspectives on Marketing Management, 1, pp. 193-225 in Hart Susan J., Baker Michael J. (1994) The Multiple Convergent Processing Model of New Product Development, International Marketing Review, 11:1, pp. 77–92.

42. Soo C., Devinney T., Midgley, D. Deering, A.

(2002) Knowledge management: philosophy, process, and pitfalls, Management Review, 44:4, pp. 129–150.

43. Su, Chao-Ton, Chenb Yung-Hsin, Shab D.Y.

(2006) Linking innovative product development with customer knowledge: a data-mining approach, Technovation, 26, pp.

784–795.

44. Trygg, L. (1993) Concurrent engineering practices in Swedish engineering companies:

a movement or an activity of the few?, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, pp. 403-415.

45. Van Kleef E. (2006) Consumer research in the early stages of new product development Issues and applications in the food domain, PhD dissertation.

46. Vesanto Juha, Alhoniemi Esa (2000) Clustering of the Self Organizing Map, In IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 11:3, pp. 586−600.

47. Zham Quingyu, Su lim and Mei Cao (2004) Innovation-Driven Learning in NPD : a conceptual model, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104, pp. 252-265.

48. Zhan Zhihai(1998) Application of experimental design in new product development, The TQM Magazine, 10:6, pp.

432–437.

49. Zhang Qingyu, William J. Doll (2001) The fuzzy front end and success of new product development: a causal model, European Journal of Innovation Management, 4:2, pp.

95-112.