bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
A Plea for Excuses
Authors: Austin J. L. , Urmson J. O. , Warnock G. J. 
Published: October 2003

Abstract
On the meta-level, ‘A Plea for Excuses’, sometimes regarded as the manifesto of ordinary language philosophy, illustrates Austin’s method of approaching philosophical issues, by patiently analysing the subtleties of ordinary language, by example. On the object level, the key distinction with regard to human actions that appear to be worthy of blame, Austin holds to be between a justification, which denies that the performed action was wrong, and an excuse, which instead denies that the agent was responsible for performing it. Austin gives careful attention to particular cases of exculpatory speech, including precise word order and varying emphasis, etymological studies, and the special function of adverbial qualifying phrases, and shows how legal precedents and abnormal psychology may also be helpful in understanding why some efforts to excuse fail. In the final analysis, excuses are properly seen as setting limits to the ascription of moral responsibility, by stating explicitly how they differ from the more usual cases.
Three Ways of Spilling Ink
Authors: Austin J. L. , Urmson J. O. , Warnock G. J. 
Published: October 2003

Abstract
Picks up on a previous discussion of responsibility, freedom, and excuses (Ch. 8), in which Austin argues that, in order to discover whether someone acted freely, we must discover whether certain excuses relevant to the situation at hand are acceptable. The notion of freedom, according to this view, is intractably linked to the notion of responsibility. Chapter 12 refines the previous discussion, by illuminating the differences between the notions of purpose, intention, and deliberation in a variety of speech acts.
Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Designs
Authors: Bailetti Antonio J. , Litva Paul F. 
Published: October 2003

Despite all best efforts, the design process often leads to the introduction of products that do not meet customer expectations. Although the design team typically applies customer‐related information from several sources, the product design somehow fails to satisfy customer requirements. Clearly, we need to develop a better understanding of the process by which designers in large development organizations transform information about customer requirements into the final design specification. To improve our understanding of this process, Antonio J. Bailetti and Paul F. Litva examine design managers' perspectives on the sources of customer requirement information.During the evolution of a product design, the design team applies information that is endorsed by marketing and product management. Common sources of such information include commercial specifications, inferences from existing products and services, deployment studies, and external standards.When this management‐endorsed information is deemed inadequate, designers supplement it by creating and sharing their own customer‐related information. This local information includes the results of benchmarking function and performance, the designers' perceptions of a service provider's installed base of equipment, and validations of intermediate designs. Marketing and product management cannot easily review the local information that designers create and share in evolving a final design.This article highlights the importance of creating mechanisms for ensuring that customer requirement information from various sources is internally consistent. To meet this goal of consistency, organizations must ensure that customer requirements information produced by marketing satisfies the information processing requirements of the design community. In addition, the knowledge that designers actually apply to produce a design must incorporate customer requirement information endorsed by marketing and product management at all stages of product development.
Business Performance and Strategic New Product Development Activities: An Empirical Investigation
Authors: Calantone Roger J. , Vickery Shawnee K. , Dröge Cornelia 
Published: October 2003

Despite the ongoing search for the so‐called silver bullet that provides the ultimate competitive advantage, there is no roadmap showing the “right” way to perform new product development (NPD). What's more, it is highly unlikely that such a formula could be developed. Given the diversity of firms and industries as well as the complexity of the NPD process, no single set of NPD activities or steps can be defined that will be appropriate for all firms.However, Roger J. Calantone, Shawnee K. Vickery, and Cornelia Droge propose that it is possible to develop such a framework within the confines of a specific industry. They suggest that successful companies within an industry are likely to focus on certain essential NPD activities that allow them to achieve the best possible results within the constraints of their market. Their research is directed toward identifying the relationship between the performance of specific innovation‐related activities and overall business performance in the furniture industry. This study also assesses the relationship between a firm's performance on an NPD activity and the importance assigned to that activity by the firm's chief executive officer (CEO). With the current emphasis on cross‐functional teams, the study also seeks to determine whether performance on a given NPD activity is related to the assignment of responsibility for that activity.The following NPD activities were evaluated for their effect on corporate performance: customization, new product introduction, design innovation, product development cycle time, product technological innovation, product improvement, new product development, and original product development. Compared to their competitors, top performers consistently put more strategic emphasis on each of these activities. All of these activities have a strong positive influence on return on investment (ROI) and ROI growth. What's more, most of the activities also clearly relate to stronger market share, market share growth, return on sales (ROS), and ROS growth.The vision and focus on these essential NPD activities must begin with CEOs who recognize their strategic value. Such leaders will direct appropriate staff and technical resources toward performance of the necessary activities. They will also ensure that the organization is sufficiently flexible to accept the changes in responsibilities for coordination and leadership that are necessary during different stages in the NPD process. To gain the product flexibility necessary for competing in numerous market segments, top performers require greater input and leadership from design, engineering, and manufacturing.
New Product Strategy, Structure, Process, and Performance in the Telecommunications Industry
Authors: Barczak Gloria 
Published: October 2003

A continuous flow of new products is the lifeblood for firms that hope to remain competitive in high‐technology industries such as telecommunications. Faced with rapidly shrinking product life cycles, these firms must aggressively pursue the quest for more effective new product development (NPD). Ongoing success in such industries is dependent on choosing the right mix of new product strategy, organizational structure, and NPD processes.Rather than considering the interrelationships among these success factors, however, most previous studies of NPD have examined these issues individually. This shortcoming is compounded by the fact that past studies of NPD have typically cut across industry lines. Gloria Barczak addresses these problems by proposing that a firm's choice of new product strategy, structure, and process are interrelated, as are the effects of those choices on NPD performance. Because these choices and their effects also may be dependent on the unique characteristics of the industry in which a firm competes, her study focuses exclusively on firms in a specific, high‐technology industry, telecommunications.The study finds that no single NPD strategy, in and of itself, stands out as being better than any other for the telecommunications industry. Instead, it appears that a company's focus should be on ensuring the best possible fit between its chosen NPD strategy and its corporate goals and capabilities.In keeping with the current focus on cross‐functional teams, the study results indicate that project teams and R&D teams are the most effective means for organizing NPD efforts in the telecommunications industry. Perhaps not surprisingly, R&D teams are more important for first‐to‐market firms than they are for fast followers and late entrants. An R&D team provides the technical skills necessary for playing the role of pioneer. Regardless of the firm's NPD strategy and structure, the presence of a product champion is an important element in the success of new product efforts.In an era of rapid, technological advances, idea generation and screening efforts are essential to the success of telecommunications firms. To ensure that they do not fall into the trap of introducing technology for technology's sake, pioneering and fast‐follower firms in particular must recognize the importance of staying in touch with their markets. Such market‐oriented activities as customer prototype testing and concept definition and testing can help these firms ensure that their technological developments are in line with customer needs and requirements.
Principles of New Product Management: Exploring the Beliefs of Product Practitioners
Authors: Calantone Roger J. , Di Benedetto C. Anthony , Haggblom Ted 
Published: October 2003

Conventional wisdom might lead us to conclude that the various disciplines involved in product development and management are often at cross‐purposes. For example, practitioners from R&D and engineering have been known to suggest that marketing fails to understand the technical trade‐offs involved in product management decisions. Conversely, marketing professionals sometimes complain that their technology‐oriented colleagues pursue product development initiatives without adequate market awareness. And practitioners from both sides of this debate have asserted that research on new product development tends to be of the ivory tower variety, with little or no relevance for industry. Are such complaints valid? Perhaps it is time for a reality check.By searching academic literature on product development, Roger J. Calantone, C. Anthony Di Benedetto, and Ted Haggblom have compiled a list of 40 fundamental principles of new product development. This list forms the basis for a survey of new product practitioners from marketing and technical disciplines. The study provides a means for assessing whether practitioners agree with the fundamental principles of new product development that are identified in current academic literature. By obtaining responses from both marketing and technical professionals, the survey also sheds light on whether those two groups hold fundamentally different beliefs regarding new product development.The survey results reveal strong overall agreement among practitioners regarding these fundamental principles of new product management. Managers believe that 80% of the principles are either usually or almost always true. In other words, the survey results support the idea that the academic community is pursuing research issues that are relevant to practitioners, and that they are reaching valid conclusions.There are only a few cases in which the responses from the technical and marketing practitioners differ. Those disagreements probably result from differences in the basic orientations of the two groups. For example, it is not surprising that marketing managers would be more likely to agree that “product users and the marketplace form the most important source for new product ideas,” while technical managers more strongly support the idea that “radically new technologies constitute an important source of new product ideas.” The respondents noted overall disagreement with only a few of the 40 principles. In many of these cases, the academic literature has reached mixed conclusions. In other words, these “principles” might actually be oversimplifications, and further research is probably needed before we can fully understand the issues involved.
Benchmarking the Firm's Critical Success Factors in New Product Development
Authors: Cooper Robert G. , Kleinschmidt Elko J. 
Published: October 2003

Managing new product development (NPD) is, to a great extent, a process of separating the winners from the losers. At the project level, tough go/no‐go decisions must be made throughout each development effort to ensure that resources are being allocated appropriately. At the company level, benchmarking is helpful for identifying the critical success factors that set the most successful firms apart from their competitors. This company‐ or macro‐level analysis also has the potential for uncovering success factors that are not readily apparent through examination of specific projects.To improve our understanding of the company‐level drivers of NPD success, Robert Cooper and Elko Kleinschmidt describe the results of a multi‐firm benchmarking study. They propose that a company's overall new product performance depends on the following elements: the NPD process and the specific activities within this process; the organization of the NPD program; the firm's NPD strategy; the firm's culture and climate for innovation; and senior management commitment to NPD. Given the multidimensional nature of NPD performance, the study involves 10 performance measures of a company's new product program: success rate, percent of sales, profitability relative to spending, technical success rating, sales impact, profit impact, success in meeting sales objectives, success in meeting profit objectives, profitability relative to competitors, and overall success.The 10 performance metrics are reduced to two underlying dimensions: program profitability and program impact. These performance factors become theX‐and Y‐ax.es of a performance map, a visual summary of the relative performance of the 135 companies responding to the survey. The performance map further breaks down the respondents into four groups: solid performers, high‐impact technical winners, low‐impact performers, and dogs. Again, the objective of this analysis is to determine what separates the solid performers from the companies in the other groups.The analysis identifies nine constructs that drive performance. In rank order of their impact on performance, the main performance drivers that separate the solid performers from the dogs are: a high‐quality new product process; a clear, well‐communicated new product strategy for the company; adequate resources for new products; senior management commitment to new products; an entrepreneurial climate for product innovation; senior management accountability; strategic focus and synergy (i.e., new products close to the firm's existing markets and leveraging existing technologies); high‐quality development teams; and cross‐functional teams.
Managing Design in Small High‐Growth Companies
Authors: Dickson Peter , Schneier Wendy , Lawrence Peter , Hytry Renee 
Published: October 2003

Cost‐cutting measures may keep investors happy, but such belt‐tightening does little for a company's long‐term growth. In an era of ever‐shrinking product life cycles, effective product design skills are essential to any company's ongoing vitality. To remain competitive, even the largest manufacturers must learn to replicate the entrepreneurial drive and innovativeness that characterize small, high‐growth firms.To foster a better understanding of the product design skills of small, high‐growth firms, Peter Dickson, Wendy Schneier, Peter Lawrence, and Renee Hytry describe the results of a survey of CEOs from companies that have been included in the Inc. 100 or Inc. 500 lists. On average, 50% of the sales for these companies came from new products launched during the past 3 years. The survey addresses three fundamental questions. First, which aspects of design management do the CEOs of small, high‐growth firms believe they manage well, and which give them difficulty? Second, to what extent are the CEOs involved in design decisions? Finally, how important is good product design to these firms?The respondents face the most difficulty in making the transition from sequential to concurrent engineering and design. Many cite a need for improved management of such skills as design for manufacturability, involvement of suppliers in the design process, estimation of costs during the design process, and the use of computer‐aided design tools during the design process. In contrast to these engineering‐related aspects of product design, the respondents are more confident in their ability to handle such marketing‐related tasks as generating new design ideas and involving customers in the design process.The survey results indicate that CEOs of small, high‐growth firms are deeply involved in design decisions. In over half the companies surveyed, CEOs indicated they had primary responsibility for design decisions. Most respondents also reported increasing their investment in design, with approximately 75% increasing their investment in product/service design over the past 3 years and almost 50% increasing their investment in packaging design.CEOs of Inc. 100 and Inc. 500 firms clearly recognize the importance of design. Approximately 70% of the respondents believe that design issues will be of increasing importance for U.S. firms' competitiveness in the coming years, and the majority feel it is important that their managers be knowledgeable about design. Approximately 75% of the CEOs believe that adopting new, fast‐track approaches to new product design would improve their firms' competitiveness.
Innovation in Process Plant: A Case Study of Ethylene
Authors: Hutcheson Peter , Pearson Alan W. , Ball Derrick F. 
Published: October 2003

Successful companies in any industry recognize the importance of involving customers and suppliers in the design and development of products and services. When complex product and process technologies are involved, these relationships create a network of companies and industries, each of which is a potential source for technological innovation. At the same time, however, such interrelationships further complicate the already challenging task of analyzing the evolving nature and sources of innovation.Using ethylene manufacture as a case study, Peter Hutcheson, Alan Pearson, and Derrick Ball present a three‐stage model of innovation. The model provides a framework for understanding the evolution of technological innovation in ethylene manufacturing, as well as the changing roles of the equipment suppliers, the process plant suppliers, and the operating companies througout this evolution. The applicability of this approach to other sectors of the chemical processing industry is also evaluated.In much the same way that a product's life cycle can be traced through distinct phases of creation, growth, maturity, and decline, technological innovation progresses through three main phases: uncoordinated, segmental, and systemic. The progression through these three phases is marked by changes in the relative levels of product and process innovation activity. In this three‐stage model, innovative activity progresses from an extreme of high product and low process innovation during the uncoordinated phase, through the segmental period of low product and high process innovation, to the low product and medium process innovation levels of the systemic phase. In other words, as the industry matures, the focus of innovative activity gradually shifts from the product to the process.As illustrated by the example of ethylene manufacturing, companies operating in an industry that has reached the systemic stage will find little or no scope for innovation in the end product or the core manufacturing technologies. In such a mature market, the product is a commodity item, and the fundamentals of the manufacturing process are well known. At this stage, the quest for productivity improvements focuses on cost reductions from task structuring and specialization, task integration, and automation. As such, equipment manufacturers play an increasingly important role in refining existing technologies and improving equipment reliability and capabilities. Such efforts are facilitated by close cooperation with the operating companies, which can contribute process expertise that the equipment manufacturers might otherwise lack.
A Philosophy for Innovation: The Role of Unconventional Individuals in Innovation Success
Authors: Steiner Carol J. 
Published: October 2003

For those of us trying to understand the nature of innovation, the role of the scientist or engineer presents a conundrum. Such individuals are often sources of innovation in both products and processes, yet routine science and engineering is typically carried out in an environment that stresses structure, order, and adherence to prescribed methods–exactly the wrong setting for successful innovation.To help explain the diminishing role of science and the burgeoning role of individuals in innovation, Carol J. Steiner presents a philosophy of innovation. Suggesting that unconventional individuals, rather than conventional science or engineering, are central to innovation success, this philosophy of innovation is derived from a philosophy of human nature formulated by Martin Heidegger. Heidegger identified three elements of human nature: (1) it is human nature to be practically involved in a complex world rather than rationally involved with a conceptually simplified world; (2) it is human nature to be authentic (i.e., unconventional, uncommitted to one's paradigm) at least some of the time; and (3) it is human nature to be cooperative. In other words, the methods and organizational structures that characterize “good” science are in direct conflict with human nature. By examining things in isolation from their natural linkages, the scientist misses the holistic view–the big picture–necessary for successful innovation.Central to this philosophy of innovation is individuality understood as authenticity. The term authenticity refers to both an unconventional (i.e., unscientific) approach to the world and an openness to alternative viewpoints. This openness is the basis for cooperative rather than competitive interaction. The fundamental themes of this philosophy of innovation are the importance of individual experience, the importance of unconventional (free) interpretations, and the importance of respect for individual uniqueness. The magic moments of innovation arise when scientists or engineers assert their individuality, break free from the structured thinking of their traditional methods, and synthesize novel interpretations that move their projects in new directions.This philosophy of innovation is not presented as a means for determining why innovation succeeds or fails. Instead, it provides a framework for assessing organizational or personal approaches to innovation. In other words, it gives managers a means for understanding and interpreting the human elements of particular innovation projects.