Concurrent Product Development Process, Project, And Performance Of Malaysian Car Manufacturer

New product development (NPD) has become more challenging with the increase in demand fluctuation, and technology advancement to cater to quality product performance, product customization and shorter lead time expectation. Thus, it is a norm for a manufacturer to establish its own formal NPD for th...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Boejang, Hambali
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English English
Published:	2019
Subjects:	T Technology (General) TS Manufactures
Online Access:	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/24515/1/Concurrent%20Product%20Development%20Process%2C%20Project%2C%20And%20Performance%20Of%20Malaysian%20Car%20Manufacturer.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/24515/2/Concurrent%20Product%20Development%20Process%2C%20Project%2C%20And%20Performance%20Of%20Malaysian%20Car%20Manufacturer.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-utem-ep.24515
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
collection	UTeM Repository
language	English English
advisor	Arep@Ariff, Hambali
topic	T Technology (General) TS Manufactures
spellingShingle	T Technology (General) TS Manufactures Boejang, Hambali Concurrent Product Development Process, Project, And Performance Of Malaysian Car Manufacturer
description	New product development (NPD) has become more challenging with the increase in demand fluctuation, and technology advancement to cater to quality product performance, product customization and shorter lead time expectation. Thus, it is a norm for a manufacturer to establish its own formal NPD for these reasons. With concurrent engineering (CE), the manufacturer creates an enabling environment for effective and efficient NPD. The minor manufacturers are believed to have a different strategy of NPD from the major players in the automotive industry due to a limited pool of resources, and the target market. As such, the purpose of this study is to explore the NPD process and project of PROTON Sdn Bhd (PROTON) that is scant. Further, to have optimum NPD performance, the players in the automotive industry must overcome the moderate effect of project characteristics. For this, an investigation is done to identify how the formal NPD of PROTON mitigates the project characteristics. This study also considers the development of a measuring tool for NPD performance. Finally, analyses are carried out to verify the effect of formal NPD, CE best practices, co-development, and project characteristics on two NPD project goals: development time and cost. The findings obtained from scholarly articles enable the questionnaires for semi-structured personal and group interviews to be developed. Prior to the interviews, the questionnaires were pre-tested to confirm the intention of the questions being asked and avoid ambiguity. The findings from both interviews allow for the NPD process and project of PROTON to be outlined and defined. Besides, some variables were introduced and investigated through a survey, involving voluntary respondents. The investigation includes non-parametric statistical analyses in which the descriptive statistical analysis was used to investigate the influence of the selected variables on both project goals. Meanwhile, the associations between variables and their impact on the project goals were also investigated using inferential statistical analysis. The findings indicate that generally, the NPD process of PROTON is not that much different from the established NPD of other manufacturers in terms of the main development phases and tasks where the development tasks are executed in parallel by many related functions. As for the NPD project, there are five types of development projects that are normally done by PROTON. It is found that PROTON refers to the project characteristics based on the change contents of the vehicle and power train. In the meantime, the NPD performance matrix was successfully developed and tested through a feasibility study. It was named “Boejang Performance Matrix” (BPM) and enables the management to make a decision on specific NPD project performance. The effect of those selected variables on, and their association with the project goals are found to be according to the existing theories, except for the incremental innovation as for PROTON of which the research and development (R&D) capability is weak, the incremental innovation is actually not a significant threat to the project performance. Therefore, a formal NPD is crucial for both minor and major car manufacturers, and it helps to reduce the negative effects of project characteristics for optimum NPD performance and product success.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	Doctor of Philosophy (PhD.)
qualification_level	Doctorate
author	Boejang, Hambali
author_facet	Boejang, Hambali
author_sort	Boejang, Hambali
title	Concurrent Product Development Process, Project, And Performance Of Malaysian Car Manufacturer
title_short	Concurrent Product Development Process, Project, And Performance Of Malaysian Car Manufacturer
title_full	Concurrent Product Development Process, Project, And Performance Of Malaysian Car Manufacturer
title_fullStr	Concurrent Product Development Process, Project, And Performance Of Malaysian Car Manufacturer
title_full_unstemmed	Concurrent Product Development Process, Project, And Performance Of Malaysian Car Manufacturer
title_sort	concurrent product development process, project, and performance of malaysian car manufacturer
granting_institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
granting_department	Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering
publishDate	2019
url	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/24515/1/Concurrent%20Product%20Development%20Process%2C%20Project%2C%20And%20Performance%20Of%20Malaysian%20Car%20Manufacturer.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/24515/2/Concurrent%20Product%20Development%20Process%2C%20Project%2C%20And%20Performance%20Of%20Malaysian%20Car%20Manufacturer.pdf
_version_	1747834072594382848
spelling	my-utem-ep.245152021-10-05T10:21:13Z Concurrent Product Development Process, Project, And Performance Of Malaysian Car Manufacturer 2019 Boejang, Hambali T Technology (General) TS Manufactures New product development (NPD) has become more challenging with the increase in demand fluctuation, and technology advancement to cater to quality product performance, product customization and shorter lead time expectation. Thus, it is a norm for a manufacturer to establish its own formal NPD for these reasons. With concurrent engineering (CE), the manufacturer creates an enabling environment for effective and efficient NPD. The minor manufacturers are believed to have a different strategy of NPD from the major players in the automotive industry due to a limited pool of resources, and the target market. As such, the purpose of this study is to explore the NPD process and project of PROTON Sdn Bhd (PROTON) that is scant. Further, to have optimum NPD performance, the players in the automotive industry must overcome the moderate effect of project characteristics. For this, an investigation is done to identify how the formal NPD of PROTON mitigates the project characteristics. This study also considers the development of a measuring tool for NPD performance. Finally, analyses are carried out to verify the effect of formal NPD, CE best practices, co-development, and project characteristics on two NPD project goals: development time and cost. The findings obtained from scholarly articles enable the questionnaires for semi-structured personal and group interviews to be developed. Prior to the interviews, the questionnaires were pre-tested to confirm the intention of the questions being asked and avoid ambiguity. The findings from both interviews allow for the NPD process and project of PROTON to be outlined and defined. Besides, some variables were introduced and investigated through a survey, involving voluntary respondents. The investigation includes non-parametric statistical analyses in which the descriptive statistical analysis was used to investigate the influence of the selected variables on both project goals. Meanwhile, the associations between variables and their impact on the project goals were also investigated using inferential statistical analysis. The findings indicate that generally, the NPD process of PROTON is not that much different from the established NPD of other manufacturers in terms of the main development phases and tasks where the development tasks are executed in parallel by many related functions. As for the NPD project, there are five types of development projects that are normally done by PROTON. It is found that PROTON refers to the project characteristics based on the change contents of the vehicle and power train. In the meantime, the NPD performance matrix was successfully developed and tested through a feasibility study. It was named “Boejang Performance Matrix” (BPM) and enables the management to make a decision on specific NPD project performance. The effect of those selected variables on, and their association with the project goals are found to be according to the existing theories, except for the incremental innovation as for PROTON of which the research and development (R&D) capability is weak, the incremental innovation is actually not a significant threat to the project performance. Therefore, a formal NPD is crucial for both minor and major car manufacturers, and it helps to reduce the negative effects of project characteristics for optimum NPD performance and product success. 2019 Thesis http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/24515/ http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/24515/1/Concurrent%20Product%20Development%20Process%2C%20Project%2C%20And%20Performance%20Of%20Malaysian%20Car%20Manufacturer.pdf text en public http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/24515/2/Concurrent%20Product%20Development%20Process%2C%20Project%2C%20And%20Performance%20Of%20Malaysian%20Car%20Manufacturer.pdf text en validuser https://plh.utem.edu.my/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=117153 phd doctoral Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering Arep@Ariff, Hambali 1. Abdullah, R., Lall, M. K. and Tatsuo, K., 2008. Supplier development framework in the Malaysian automotive industry: Proton experience. International Journal of Economics and Management, 2, pp. 29.58. 2. Abdulsomad, K., 1999. Promoting industrial and technological development under contrasting industrial policies: the automobile industries in Malaysia and Thailand, in Jomo, K. S., Felker, G. and Rajah, R. (eds.), Industrial Technology Development in Malaysia, London: Routledge. 3. Ahmad, Z. M. F., 2014. Organisational Learning, Organisational Ambidexterity, Environmental Turbulence, and NPD Performance of Malaysian Manufacturing Sector (Ph.D. Thesis), Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia. 4. Anonymous., 2019. Production Statistics. [online]. Available at http://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/ [Accessed on 15 July 2019]. 5. Anonymous., 2019. Production Statistics. [online]. Available at http://www.oica.net/ category/production-statistics/2018-statistics/ [Accessed on 20 Dec 2018]. 6. Anonymous., 2019. Summary of Sales & Production Data. [online]. Available at: http://www.maa.org.my/info_summary.htm [Accessed on 20 Dec 2018]. 7. Anonymous., 2019. ASEAN Automotive Federation Statistics. [online]. Available at http://www.asean-autofed.com/statistics.html [Accessed on 20 Dec 2018]. 8. Anonymous., 2019. MIDA Collaborates with MAA to Boost Localisation Activities in The Automotive Industry. [online]. Available at: http://www.mida.gov.my/home/ 8484/news/ mida-collaborates-with-maa-to-boost-localisation-activities-in-the-automotive-industry/ [Accessed on 20 Dec 2018]. 9. Anonymous., 2018. Market Review for 2017, and outlook for 2018. MAA Press Conference. [online]. Available at: http://www.maa.org.my/pdf/Market_Review_2017.pdf [Accessed on 20 Dec 2018]. 10. Anonymous, 2018. New Product Introduction. Introduction to PROTON NPI . The PROTON Way Program. Presentation material used by PROTON during the group interview. 11. Anonymous., 2017. Market International: Economic development. [online]. Available at: https://www.vda.de/en/topics/automotive-industry-and-markets/international-market/ development-of-global-markets.html [Accessed on 21 July 2019]. 12. Anonymous., 2009. Review of National Automotive Policy. [online]. Available at: https://www.miti.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/1449 [Accessed on 20 Dec 2018]. 13. Appleyard, M. M., 2003. The Influence of Knowledge Accumulation on Buyer-Supplier Co-development Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Managemen, 20(5), pp. 356.373. 14. Awwad, A. and Akroush, M. N. 2016. New product development performance success measures: An exploratory research. EuroMed Journal of Business, 11(1), pp. 2-29. 15. Bai, W., Feng, Y., Yue, Y. and Feng, L., 2017. Organizational Structure, Cross-Functional Integration and Performance of New Product Development Team. Procedia Engineering, 174, pp. 621.629. 16. Barczak, G., Griffin, A. and Kahn, K. B., 2009. Perspective: Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, pp. 3-23. 17. Barczak, G. and Kahn, K. B., 2012. Identifying new product development best practice, Business Horizons. Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 55(3), pp. 293.305. 18. Barriball, L. K. and While, A., 1994. Collecting data using a semi�]structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, pp. 328-335. 19. Beaume, R., Maniak, R. and Midler, C., 2009. Crossing innovation and product projects management: a comparative analysis in the automotive industry. International Journal of Project Management, 27(2), pp. 166-174. 20. Bell, E. and Bryman, A., 2007. The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18, pp. 63.77. 21. Berg, J.W., 2001. Grave secrets: legal and ethical analysis of postmortem confidentiality. Connecticut Law Review, 34(1), pp. 81.122. 22. Biography.com Editors., 2014. Karl Benz Biography. [online] Available at: https://www.biography.com/inventor/karl-benz [Accessed on 5 July 2017]. 23. Birou, L. M. and Fawcett, S. E., 1994. Supplier Involvement in Integrated Product Development: A Comparison of US and European Practices. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24(5), pp. 4-14. 24. Boone, H. N. and Boone, D. A., 2012. Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2). 25. Brace, I., 2013. Questionnaire Design. How to plan, structure and write survay material for effective market research, 3rd Edition, London. Kogan Page. 26. Brace, I., 2004. Questionnaire Design Survey Material for Effective, Business. Business. Viitattu, 2004. 27. Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M., 1995. Product Development: Past Research, Present Findings, and Future Directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), pp. 343.378. 28. Bryman, A., and Bell, E., 2007. Business Research Methods, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press. 29. Bryman, A. Bell, E.A., and Teevan, J. J., 2012. Social research methods, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press. 30. Bstieler, L. and Bstieler, L., 2005. The Moderating Effect of Environmental Uncertainty on New Product Development and Time Efficiency. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, pp. 267.284. 31. Cabigiosu, A., Zirpoli, F. and Camuffo, A., 2013. Modularity, interfaces definition and the integration of external sources of innovation in the automotive industry. Research Policy, 42(3), pp. 662.675. 32. Caniato, F. and Grosler, A., 2015. The moderating effect of product complexity on new product development and supply chain management integration. Production Planning & Control, 26(16), pp. 1306-1317. 33. Chavan, P. and Kulkarni, R. V., 2017. Role of non-parametric test in Management and Social Science Research. Quest International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 6(9), pp. 38 - 52. 34. Ciarapica, F. E., Bevilacqua, M., and Mazzuto, G. 2016. Performance analysis of new product development projects: An approach based on value stream mapping, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(2), pp. 177-206. 35. Clark, K. B., Chew, W. B., and Fujimoto, T. 1987. Product development in the world auto industry. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, pp. 729-781. 36. Clark, K. B., 1989. Project Scope and Project Performance: The Effect of Parts Strategy and Supplier Involvement on Product Development. Management Science, 35(10), pp. 1247.1263. 37. Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T., 1991. Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 38. Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T., 1989. Lead time in automobile product development explaining the Japanese advantage. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6(1), pp. 25.58. 39. Clark, K. B., Chew, W. B. and Fujimoto, T., 1987. Product development in the world auto industry. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, pp. 729-781. 40. Clark, K. B. and Wheelwright, S. C., 1995. Product Development Challenge: Competing Through Speed, Quality, and Creativity. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA. 41. Clark, K. B. and Wheelwright, S. C., 1992. Organizing and Leading �gHeayweight�h Development Teams. California Management Review, 34(3), pp. 9-28. 42. Clifton, N., 2014. Systems suppliers: towards "best practice?. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 8(3), pp. 172.190. 43. Cohee, G. L., Barrows, J., and Handfield, R. 2018. Early supplier integration in the US defense industry. Journal of Defense Analytics and Logistics, pp. 1.28. 44. Cohen, D. and Crabtree, B., 2006. Semi-structured Interviews Recording Semi-Structured interviews. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. [online]. Available at: http://www.qualres.org/ [Accessed on 3 July 2017]. 45. Cohen, M. A., Eliasberg, J. and Ho, T.-H., 2008. New Product Development: The Performance and Time-to-Market Tradeoff. Management Science, 42(2), pp. 173.186. 46. Collis, J. and Hussey, R., 2013. Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students Hamphire, 3rd Edition. Macmillan Press, London, UK. 47. Cooper, R., 1984. How new product strategies impact on performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1(1), pp. 5.18. 48. Cooper, R. G., 2008. Perspective: The stage-gates?? idea-to-launch process - Update, what new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), pp. 213.232. 49. Cooper, R. G., 2004. New Products.What Separates the Winners from the Losers and What Drives Succes in The PDM. Handbook of New Product Development, pp. 3.28. 50. Cooper, R. G., 1996. Overhauling the new product process. Industrial Marketing Management, 25(6), pp. 465.482. 51. Cooper, R. G. and Kleinschmidt, E. J., 2007. Winning businesses in product development: The critical success factors. Research Technology Management. 50(3), pp. 52.66. 52. Cooper, R. and Kleinschmidt, E., 1994. Determinants of timeliness in product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(5), pp. 381.396. 53. Creswell, J. W., 2015. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. 54. Creswell, J. W., 2014. Research design: Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 55. Creswell, J. W., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Approaches. 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. 56. Cusumano, M. A. and Nobeoka, K., 1992. Strategy, structure and performance in product development: Observations from the auto industry. Research Policy, 21(3), pp. 265.293. 57. Cusumano, M. A. and Takeishi, A.,1991. Supplier relations and management: A survey of Japanese, Japanese transplant, and U.S. auto plants. Strategic Management Journal, 12(8), pp. 563.588. 58. Danese, P., 2013. Supplier integration and company performance: A configurational view. Omega (United Kingdom). Elsevier, 41(6), pp. 1029.1041. 59. Dekkers, R., Chang, C. M. and Kreutzfeldt, J., 2013. The interface between product design and engineering and manufacturing: A review of the literature and empirical evidence. International Journal of Production Economics, 144(1), pp. 316.333. 60. Denzin, N., 2001. Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA.Sage. 61. Derbyshire, J. and Giovannetti, E., 2017. Understanding the failure to understand New Product Development failures: Mitigating the uncertainty associated with innovating new products by combining scenario planning and forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, pp. 334-344. 62. Deros, B. M., Yusof, S. and Salleh, A., 2006. A Survey on Critical Factors and Problems in Implementing Benchmarking Towards Achieving Business Competitiveness in SMEs. Jurnal Kejuruteraan. 18, pp. 29.37. 63. Djamba, Y. K. and Neuman, W. L., 2002. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Teaching Sociology. 30(3), pp. 380-381. 64. Dominici, G., Roblek, V., Abbate, T. and Tani, M., 2016. Click and drive: Consumer attitude to product development: Towards future transformations of the driving experience. Business Process Management Journal, 22(2), pp. 420-434. 65. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Tabrizi, B. N., 1995. Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry.Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 84-110. 66. Ellison, D. J., Clark, K. B., Fujimoto, T. and Young-suk, H., 1995. Product Development Performance in the Auto Industry: 1990s Update. International Motor Vehicle Program. Working Paper 95-066, Harvard Business School. 67. Elmaraghy, W., Elmaraghy, H., Tomiyama, T. and Monostori, L., 2012. Complexity in engineering design and manufacturing. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 61(2), pp. 793.814. 68. Ernst, H., 2002.Success factors of new product development: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, pp. 1.40. 69. Fantazy, K. A. and Salem, M., 2016. The value of strategy and flexibility in new product development: The impact on performance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 29(4), pp. 525-548. 70. Fazilah, A. A., Jaafar, N. N. and Suraya, S., 2014. Critical success factors of new product development and impact on performance of Malaysian automotive industry. Advanced Materials Research, 903(X), pp. 431.437. 71. Fitzgerald, S., Dimitrov, D. and Rumrill, P., 2001. The basics of nonparametric statistics. Work (Reading, Mass.), 16(3), pp. 287.292. 72. Fitzsimmons, J. A. and Kouvelis, P., 1992. Design Strategy and Its Interface with Manufacturing and Marketing : A Conceptual Framework. 10(3). 73. Flankegard, F., Johansson, G. and Granlund, A., 2019. Challenges with Supplier Involvement in Product Development: A Supplier Perspective. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1(1), pp. 2179.2188. 74. Fleischer, M. and Liker, J. K., 1992. The hidden professionals: Product designer and their impact on design quality. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, 39(3), pp. 254.264. 75. Fliess, S. and Becker, U., 2006. Supplier integration - Controlling of co-development processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, pp. 28-44. 76. Fredericks, E., 2005. Cross functional involvement in new product development. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(3), pp. 327.341. 77. Gerhard, D., Brem, A. and Voigt, K. I., 2008. Product development in the automotive industry: crucial success drivers for technological innovations. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 3(3), pp. 203.222. 78. Goertz, G. and Mahoney, J., 2012. Concepts and measurement: Ontology and epistemology. Social Science Information, 51(2), pp. 205.216. 79. Gonzalez, F. J. M. and Palacios, T. M. B., 2002. The effect of new product development techniques on new product success in Spanish firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(3), pp. 261.271. 80. Graner, M. and Misler-Behr, M., 2013. Key determinants of the successful adoption of new product development methods. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(3), pp. 301.316. 81. Griffin, A., 1997. PDMA Research on New Product Developmant practices - updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, pp. 429.458. 82. Griffin, A. and Hauser, J. R., 1996. Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(3), pp. 191.215. 83. Griffin, A. and Page, A. L., 1993. An interim report on measuring product development success and failure. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, pp. 291.308. 84. Hagan, F., 2006. Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology, 7th Edition, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 85. Haque, B., Pawar, K. and Barson, R., 2003. The application of business process modelling to organisational analysis of concurrent engineering environments. Technovation, 23(2), pp. 147.162. 86. Haque, B. and Pawar, K. S., 2003. Organizational analysis. A process-based model for concurrent engineering environments. Business Process Management Journal, 9(4), pp. 490-526. 87. Hartley, J. L., Zirger, B. J. and Kamath, R. R., 1997. Managing the buyer-supplier interface for on-time performance in product development. Journal of Operations Management, 15 (1), pp. 57.70. 88. Hesse-Biber, S. N. and Leavy, P., 2011. The Practice of Qualitative Research. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 89. Hong, P., Doll, W. J., Nahm, A.Y. and Li, X., 2004. Knowledge sharing in integrated product development. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(2), pp. 102.112. 90. Hussein, B. A., Pigagaite, G. and Silva, P. P., 2014. Identifying and Dealing with Complexties in New Product and Process Development Projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, pp. 702.710. 91. Hussey, J. and Hussey, R., 1997. Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Basingstoke. Macmillan. 92. Hartley, J. L., Zirger, B. J. and Kamath, R.R., 1997. Managing the buyer-supplier interface for on-time performance in product development. Journal of Operations Management, 15, pp. 57.70. 93. Hauck, W. C., Anil, B. P. E. and Hauck, A. J., 1997. Simultaneous engineering correlates of success. International Journal of Production Economics, 52, pp. 83.90. 94. Iansiti, M., 1995. Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment. Research Policy, 24, pp. 521.542. 95. JAMA, 2017. The Motor Industry of Japan 2017. [online]. Available at https://www. japanindustrynews.com/2016/03/japanese-automotive-industry/. [Accessed on 18 June 2019]. 96. Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J., 2007. Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), pp. 112.133. 97. Jupp, V., 2006. The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods London. SAGE Publications. 98. Kahn, K. B., Kay, S.E., Slotegraaf, R. and Uban, S., 2013. PDMA Handbook of New Product Development. 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. 99. Kamath, R. R. and Liker, J. K., 1994. A second look at Japanese product development, Harvard Business Review, 72(6), pp. 154.170. 100. Keller, R. T., 2017. Cross-Functional Project Groups in Research and New Product Development : Diversity, Communications, Job Stress, and Outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), pp. 547-555. 101. Kettunen, J., Grushka- Cockayne, Y., Degraeve, Z. and De Reyck, B., 2015. New Product Development Flexibility in a Competitive Environment. European Journal of Operational Research, 244(3), pp. 892-904. 102. Kim, Y. H., Park, S. W. and Sawng, Y. W., 2016. Improving new product development (NPD) process by analyzing failure cases. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), pp. 134.150. 103. Kim, J. and Wilemon, D., 2002a. Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development. R&D Management, 32(4), pp. 269.279. 104. Kim, J. and Wilemon, D., 2002b. Strategic issues in managing innovation fuzzy front-end. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(1), pp. 27.39. 105. Kothari, C., 2001. Research Methodology . Methods and Techniques, 2nd Edition, Wishwa Prakashan, Kolkata. 106. Kowang, T. O., Long, C. S. and Rasli, A., 2014. New Product Development Framework for Multinational Multi-locations based Organizations in South East Asia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 129, pp. 68.74. 107. Krishnan, V. and Ulrich, K., 2001. Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management science, 47(1), pp. 1.21. 108. Labro, E., 2006. Is a focus on collaborative product development warranted from a cost commitment perspective?. Supply Chain Management, An International Journal, 11(6), pp. 503-509. 109. Lebcir, M. R., 2006. A Framework for Project Complexity in New Product Development (NPD) Projects. University of Hertfordshire. Business School Working Paper. 2006-1. 110. Leifer, R., Of Connor, G. C. and Rice, M., 2001. Implementing radical innovation in mature firms: The role of hubs. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(3), pp. 102.113. 111. Lettice, F., Roth, N. and Forstenlechner, I., 2006. Measuring knowledge in the new product development process. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(3), pp. 217-241. 112. Lewis, M. A., 2001. Success, failure and organisational competence: A case study of the new product development process. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 18(2), pp. 185.206. 113. Lu, Q. and Wood, L., 2006. The refinement of design for manufacture: Inclusion of process design. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 26(10), pp. 1123-1145. 114. Lune, H. and Berg, B. L., 2017. Qualitatives Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 9th Edition, Global Edition, Pearson Education Limited, Essex, UK. 115. MAA, 2006. Duty and Motor Taxes on Motor Vehicles. Malaysian Automotive Association. [online]. Available at: http://www.maa.org.my/info_duty.htm [Accessed on 20 August 2018]. 116. Maarof, M. G. and Mahmud, F., 2016. A review of contributing factors and challenges in implementing Kaizen in small and medium enterprises. In 7th International Economics & Business Management Conference, 5th & 6th October 2015, 35, pp. 522.531. 117. Madenas, N., Tiwari, A., Turner, C., and Peachey, S. 2015. An analysis of supply chain issues relating to information flow during the automotive product development. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 26(8), pp. 1158-1176. 118. Mahajan, V. and Wind, J., 1992. New product models: Practice, shortcomings and desired improvements. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(2), pp. 128-139. 119. Mahmoud-Jouini, S. Ben and Lenfle, S., 2010. Platform re-use lessons from the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 30(1), pp. 98.124. 120. Masi, A. C. and Blaikie, N., 2006. Approaches to Social Enquiry. Contemporary Sociology, 24(2), pp. 273-274. 121. Mason, M., 2010. FORUM : Qualitative Social Research. Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews. 11(3), pp. 1.19. 122. Mat, N. and Jantan, M., 2009. Trust and Coordination in Cross-Functional New Product Development (NPD) Teams and the Effects on New Product Development Performance: The Malaysian Perspective. International Journal of Management and Innovation, 1(2), pp. 72-89. 123. Maxwell, J. A. and Mittapalli, K., 2011. A realist approach to qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 13(4), pp. 585.586. 124. Maylor, H. and Gosling, R., 1998. The reality of concurrent new product development. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 9(2), pp. 69.76. 125. McDermott, C. and Handfield, R., 2000. Concurrent development and strategic outsourcing. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11, pp. 35.57. 126. McDermott, C. M. and O Connor, G. C., 2002. Managing radical innovation: An overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, pp. 424.438. 127. McDonough, E. F., 1993. Faster new product development: Investigating the effects of technology and characteristics of the project leader and team. The Journal of Product Innovation Management. 10, pp. 241-250. 128. McGinnis, M. A. and Vallopra, R. M., 1999. Purchasing and supplier involvement in process improvement: A source of competitive advantage. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 35(3), pp. 4-15. 129. MIDA, 2019. Malaysia Your Gateway to ASEAN Automotive Market. Business opportunities, Malaysia Industrial Development Authority. [online]. Available at: https://www.mida.gov.my/home/administrator/system_files/modules/photo/uploads/20191024150441_Automotive%202019-08-22.pdf [Accessed on 20 August 2018]. 130. Miles, M. and Huberman, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd Edition, Sage. 131. Molina, V. B., Montes, F. J. L., and Gutierrez, L. J. G., 2015. Dynamic capabilities, human resources and operating routines: A new product development approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(8), pp. 1388-1411. 132. Mu, J., 2015. Marketing capability, organizational adaptation and new product development performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, pp. 151.166. 133. Mukherjee, A. and Sastry, T., 1996. Automotive Industry in Emerging Economies: A Comparison of South Korea, Brazil, China and India. Economic and Political Weekly. 31(48), pp. M75-M78. 134. Munns, A. K. and Bjeirmi, B. F., 1996. The role of project management in achieving project success. International Journal of Project Management, 14(2), pp. 81-88. 135. Nihtila, J., 1999. R&D.Production integration in the early phases of new product development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 16(1), pp. 55.81. 136. O'Cass, A. and Heirati, N., 2015. Mastering the complementarity between marketing mix and customer-focused capabilities to enhance new product performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(1), pp. 60-71. 137. Oliver, N., Dostaler, I. and Dewberry, E., 2004. New product development benchmarks: The Japanese, North American, and UK consumer electronics industries. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15(2), pp. 249.265. 138. Oliver, N., Holweg, M. and Carver, M., 2008. A systems perspective on the death of a car company. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28(6), pp. 562.583. 139. 161 140. Page, A. L., 1993. Assessing new product development practices and performance: Establishing crucial norms. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, pp. 273-290. 141. Petersen, K., Handfield, R. B. and Ragatz, G. L., 2005. Supplier Integration Into New Product Development : Coordinating Product, Process and Supply Chain Design. Journal of Operation Management, 23(3/4), pp. 371-388. 142. Petersen, K. J., Handfield, R. B. and Ragatz, G. L., 2003. A model of supplier integration into new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, pp. 284-299. 143. Poolton, J. and Barclay, I., 1998. New Product Development From Past Research to Future Applications. Industrial Marketing Management, 27(3), pp. 197.212. 144. Primo, M. A. and Amundson, S. D., 2002. An exploratory study of the effects of supplier relationships on new product development outcomes. Journal of Operations Management, 20(1), pp. 33.52. 145. Rahman, A. H., 2018. Proton Saga paling laris pada 2017. [online]. Available at: http://www.astroawani.com/berita-bisnes/proton-saga-paling-laris-pada-2017-165000 [Accessed date 20 Dec 2018]. 146. Rajah, R., 2009. Technological Capabilities of Automotive Firms in Indonesia and Malaysia. Asian Economic Papers, 8(1), pp. 151-169. 147. Rauniar, R., William, J. D., Paul, C. H. and Greg, R., 2008. The role of heavyweight product manager in new product development. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28(2), pp. 130.154. 148. Ringen, G. and Welo, T. 2018. The product development learning process and its relation to performance indicators. Procedia Manufacturing, 26, pp. 107.116. 149. Robson, C., 2002. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. Oxford, Blackwell. 150. Rosli, M., 2006. Automobile Industry and Performance of Malaysian Auto Production. Journal of Economic Cooperation, 27(1), pp. 89.114. 151. Rosli, M. and Kari, F., 2008. Malaysia's National Automotive Policy and the Performance of Proton's Foreign and Local Vendors, Asia Pacific Business Review, 14(1), pp. 103-118. 152. Rugman, A. M. and Collinson, S., 2004. The regional nature of the world automotive sector. European Management Journal, 22(5), pp. 471.482. 153. Salomo, S., Keinschmidt, E. J. and De Brentani, U., 2010. Managing new product development teams in a globally dispersed NPD program. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 27(7), pp. 955.971. 154. Saunders, M. and Tosey, P., 2015. Handbook of Research Methods on Human Resource Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 155. Schoenherr, T. and Wagner, S. M., 2016. Supplier involvement in the fuzzy front end of new product development: An investigation of homophily, benevolence and market turbulence. International Journal of Production Economics. Elsevier, 180, pp. 101.113. 156. Schuh, G., Riesener, M., Mattern, C., Linnartz, M. and Basse, F., 2018. Evaluating collaboration productivity in interdisciplinary product development. Procedia CIRP, 70, pp. 211.216. 157. Sethi, R. and Al., 2001. Cross Functional Product Development Teams Creativity and Innovativeneness of New Consumer Products. Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 73.85. 158. Shah, D. A. and Madden, L. V., 2004. Nonparametric Analysis of Ordinal Data in Designed Factorial Experiments. Phytopathology, 94(1), pp. 33.43. 159. Sherman, J. D., Berkowitz, D. and Souder, W. E., 2005. New product development performance and the interaction of cross-functional integration and knowledge management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(5), pp. 399.411. 160. Shim, D., Kim, J. G., and Altmann, J. 2016. Strategic management of R&D and marketing integration for multi-dimensional success of new product developments: An empirical investigation in the Korean ICT industry. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 24(3), pp. 293.316. 161. Sicotte, H. and Bourgault, M., 2008. Dimensions of uncertainty and their moderating effect on new product development project performance. R&D Management, 38(5), pp. 468.479. 162. Silva, G. C. and Kaminski, P. C., 2017. Proposal of framework to managing the automotive product development process. Cogent Engineering. 4, pp. 1.25. 163. Silverman, D., 2006. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. 3rd Edition. United Kingdom: Sage, London. 164. Simmons, C. H., Maguire, D. E. and Phelps, N., 2009. Product development and computer aided design. Manual of Engineering Drawing, pp. 7.12. 165. Simpson, M., Sykes, G. and Abdullah, A., 1998. Case study: transitory JIT at Proton cars, Malaysia. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 28, pp. 121.142. 166. Sjoerdsma, M. and van Weele, A. J., 2015. Managing supplier relationships in a new product development context. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(3), pp. 192.203. 167. Slack, N., Chamber, S., Harland, C. and Johnston, R., 2009. Operations Management. Pitman Publishing, London. 168. Sloman, K. N., 2014. Research trends in descriptive analysis. The Behavior Analyst Today. 11(1), pp. 20-35. 169. Smith, R. P. and Eppinger, S. D., 2008. Identifying Controlling Features of Engineering Design Iteration. Management Science, 43(3), pp. 276.293. 170. Smith, R. P. and Eppinger, S. D., 1998. Deciding between sequential and concurrent tasks in engineering design. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications. 6, pp. 15-25. 171. Song, M. and Di Benedetto, C. A., 2008. Supplier involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1), pp. 1.22. 172. Song, M. and Thieme, J., 2009. The role of suppliers in market intelligence gathering for radical and incremental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, pp. 43-57. 173. Spieth, P. and Joachim, V., 2017. Reducing front end uncertainties: How organisational characteristics influence the intensity of front end analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123(July), pp. 108.119. 174. Stechert, C. and Franke, H. J., 2009. Managing requirements as the core of multi-disciplinary product development. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 1(3), pp. 153-158. 175. Stockstrom, C. and Herstatt, C., 2008. Planning and uncertainty in new product development. R&D Management, 38(5), pp. 480.490. 176. Sutton, R. I. and Staw, B. M., 1995. What Theory is Not Robert. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), pp. 371.384. 177. Swink, M., 2003. Completing projects on-time: How project acceleration affects new product development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(4), pp. 319-344. 178. Swink, M., Talluri, S. and Pandejpong, T., 2006. Faster, better, cheaper: A study of NPD project efficiency and performance tradeoffs. Journal of Operations Management, 24(5), pp. 542.562. 179. Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I., 1986. The New New Product Development Game. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, pp. 137.147. 180. Tatikonda, M. V. and Rosenthal, S. R., 2000. Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: A deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1), pp. 74.87. 181. Tatikonda, M. V and Montoya-Weiss, M. M., 2001. Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation. Management Science. 47 (1), pp. 151.172. 182. Thomas, R. and Oliver, N., 1991. Components supplier patterns in the UK motor industry. Omega. 19(6), pp. 609-616. 183. Thomke, S. H., 1998. Managing Experimentation in the Design of New Products. Management Science. 44. pp. 743-762. 184. Turnbull, P., Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B., 1992. Buyer-Supplier Relations in the Uk Automotive Industry: Strategic Implications of the Japanese Manufacturing Model. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), pp. 159.168. 185. Ulrich, K., 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24(3), pp. 419.440. 186. Ulrich, K. T. and Eppinger, S. D., 2012. Product Design and Development: Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill. 187. Unger, D. W. and Eppinger, S. D., 2009. Comparing product development processes and managing risk. International Journal of Product Development, 8(4), pp. 382-390. 188. Valle, S. and Vazquez-Bustelo, D., 2009. Concurrent engineering performance: Incremental versus radical innovation. International Journal of Production Economics, 119(1), pp. 136.148. 189. Vandevelde, A. and Dierdonck, R. V., 2003. Managing the design-manufacturing interface. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(11), pp. 1326.1348. 190. Vayvay, O. and Cobanoglu, E., 2006. Relationship component of supplier involvement in New Product Development (NPD) process. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology - PICMET, pp, 9-13. 191. Verworn, B., Herstatt, C. and Nagahira, A., 2008. The fuzzy front end of Japanese new product development projects: Impact on success and differences between incremental and radical projects. R&D Management. 38(1), pp. 1.19. 192. Wad. P., 2009 The automobile industry of Southeast Asia. Malaysia and Thailand Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 14(2), pp. 172.193. 193. Wad, P., 2008. The development of automotive parts suppliers in Korea and Malaysia: a global value chain perspective. Asia Pacific Business Review, 14 (1), pp. 47.64. 194. Wad, P., 2001. Business systems and sector dynamics: the case of the Malaysian auto industry. In: G. Jakobsen and J.E. Torp, eds. Understanding business systems in developing countries. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 87.127. 195. Wad, P. and Govindaraju, V. G. R. C., 2011. Automotive industry in Malaysia: an assessment of its development. International Journal Automotive Technology and Management, 11(2), pp. 152.171. 196. Wasti, S. N. and Liker, J. K., 1997. A Special Issue on Product Development in Japanese Companies Risky business or competitive power? supplier involvement in Japanese product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(5), pp. 337-355. 197. Wheelwright, S. C. and Clark, K. B., 1992. Competing through development capability in a manufacturing-based organization. Business Horizons, 35(4), pp. 29.43. 198. Wheelwright, S. C. and Clark, K. B., 1992. Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review, 70(2), pp. 70.82. 199. Womack, J., 2007. The machine that changed the world: the story of lean production-Toyota's secret weapon in the global car wars that is revolutionizing world industry. New York: Free Press. 200. Yahaya, N., 2010. An Exploration of Co-Development Within the Malaysian Automotive Industry (PhD Thesis), Crankfield University, United Kingdom. 201. Yang, L. R., 2012. Implementation of project strategy to improve new product development performance. International Journal of Project Management, 30(7), pp. 760.770. 202. Yeniyurt, S., Henke, J. W. and Yalcinkaya, G., 2014. A longitudinal analysis of supplier involvement in buyers new product development: Working relations, inter-dependence, co-innovation, and performance outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, pp. 291.308. 203. Zahay, D., Hajli, N. and Sihi, D., 2018. Managerial perspectives on crowdsourcing in the new product development process. Industrial Marketing Management, 71, pp. 41.53. 204. Zhang, H. and Lv, S. 2015. Effect of HR practice on NPD performance: The moderating role of environmental uncertainty. Nankai Business Review International, 6(3), pp. 256-280. 205. Zhang, H. C. and Alting, L., 1992. An exploration of simultaneous engineering for manufacturing enterprises. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 7, pp. 101-108.

Concurrent Product Development Process, Project, And Performance Of Malaysian Car Manufacturer

Similar Items