Honeywell Building Controls Division (BCD) was split after the Residential and Building Controls Division lost money in 1981. The new BCD was created with a hope for a profitable business. In order to get more market share, in 1984 the BCD started to build Mod IV; the great promised product with better quality of its motor and cost reduction. The BCD built the cross-functional Mod IV team combined from manufacturing, marketing/sales, and engineering. In addition, to be more competitive, the BCD dropped sequential development in favor of the parallel development with a desire for faster and better products. The skate was high but the BCD had an inferior Product Development that slowed them down. The inferior product development delayed both the design schedule and production schedule. In this paper, we will exam the problems of the BCD Mod IV product development. The inferior product development of the Mod IV might link to the project team, the project leader, and the suppliers and customers. DIAGNOSIS/ANALYSIS
We begin by looking at project team in team of internal communication, external communication, and problem-solving strategy. In the case of internal communications (e.g., Dougherty, 1990; Keller, 1986), frequent communication increase the amount of information directly in that more communication usually yields more information (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). It cuts misunderstanding and barriers to interchange so that the amount of information conveyed is increased (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). This, in turn, improves the speed and productivity of the entire development process (Doughherty, 1992). Internal communication at the BCD was not good. One instance, the project team invited general manager John Bailey to attend a team meeting. John came to the meeting to show his support to learn that the meeting was postponed. The incident was not only cost the project time but also potentially disturbed production schedule since John was a very high rank officer. The project team should communicate with all members in the meeting about for any changes in the schedule so it would avoid wasting people time. Next, we look at the external communication. In the case of external communication, frequent communication with outsiders such as customers, suppliers, and other organization personnel opens the project team up to new information (e.g., Clark &Fujimoto, 1991; Imai et al., 1985; Katz, 1982; Katz & Tushman, 1981). When this external communication is task oriented, team members gain information from diverse viewpoints beyond those of the team (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). Taken together and consistent with previous research, internal and external communication both increase the amount and variety of information and the resource available to the project team (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). These, in turn, improve process performance (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). The information that BCD project team received sometimes was a disaster (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). For example, engineers took the information from the distributors that they would stock single-shaft motors for the project development. Engineers went ahead working on the Mod IV based on single-shaft motor. Later, the project team found out that all they had were double-shaft motors. This error information could cost the project many problems with the motor later. The engineering design was not based double-shaft motor. Later on, incorporated of the double-shaft motor might generate a lot of noise in the motor. This incident showed that the external communication between project team still broke somewhere along the product development process. Along with external communication, project team needed a good problem-solving strategy (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). The problem-solving strategy assumes a certain but often complex problem-solving task that can be rationalized (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). For example, consistent...
References: Clark. K. B., & Fujimoto. T. 1991. Product development performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cooper. R. G., & Kleinschmidt. E. J. 1987. New products: What separates winners from losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management. 4: 169-184.
Dougherty. D. 1990. Understanding new markets for new products. Strategic Management Journal, 11:59-78.
Dougherty. D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science,3:179-202.
Gupta. A. K., & Wilemon. D. L. 1990. Accelerating the development of technology-based new products. California Management Review, 32(2):24-44.
Hayes. R. H., Wheelwright. S. C., & Clark. K. 1988. Dynamic manufacturing. New York: Free Press.
Iansiti. M. 1992. Science-based product development: An empirical study of the mainframe computer industry. Working paper. Harvard Business School. Cambridge, MA.
Katz. R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly.27:81-104.
Katz. R., & Tushman. M. L. 1981. An investigation into the managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers and project supervisors in a major R&D facility. R&D Management. 11: 103-110.
Keller. R. T. 1986. Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal,29:715-726.
Zirger. B. J., & Maidique. M. 1990. A model of new product development: An empirical test. Management Science, 36:867-883.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document