Code Question Use in Full Research
Technological Turbulence
T1 The technology changed rapidly USED-no change T2 Technological improvements provided big opportunities USED-no change T3 Forecasting the state of technology five years forward was difficult USED-no change T4 Technological breakthroughs led to new products USED-no change T5 The modes of production and service change often USED-no change T6 New technology was applied in this project NOT used T6 New technology was applied in this project NOT used
Market Turbulence
M1 Customer product preferences were changing USED-no change M2 Customer demand was difficult to forecast USED-no change M3 Customer service and support expectations increased NOT used M4 Customer preferences were difficult to forecast USED-no change M5 Customer product evaluation cycles became more rigorous NOT used M6 Customers reevaluated their product choices more frequently NOT used M7 Customers were looking for new products USED-no change M8 New customers bought our products and services NOT used M9 New customer needs were often different from existing customer needs USED-no change
Competitive Turbulence
C1 Competition in our industry was cutthroat USED-edited C2 Competitors readily matched out actions USED-no change C3 Competitors had strong sales forces NOT used C4 Competitors had strong distribution systems NOT used C5 New competitors regularly entered our industry USED-edited C6 New competitive occurred regularly USED-edited
C7 Promotion wars were common NOT used
C8 Price competition was a hallmark of our industry NOT used
Appendix D: Pilot Study Draft Measure Question Disposition continued
Code Question Use in Full Research
Regulatory Turbulence
R1 Our industry had stringent regulations USED-no change R2 Regulatory changes shaped our business USED-no change
R3 Regulations were uncertain USED-no change
R4 Regulatory schemes varied widely in different countries NOT used
R5 Regulations changed quickly NOT used
R6 Regulations changed during product development NOT used R7 Shifts in regulatory structures occurred often NOT used R8 Regulations were implemented with varying rigor NOT used R9 Our home country regulations impede our ability compete in other countries USED-edited R10 New markets had more stringent regulations than our home country USED-no change R11 Local companies had a regulatory advantage in foreign markets NOT used
Foundational Customers (integrative practice)
F1 We chose some customers to be project team members USED-edited F2 We met often with customers on the project team NOT used F3 Customers on the project team influenced the product concept USED-no change F4 Customers on the project team contributed to product specifications USED-no change F5 Customers on the project team described their expected use of this product USED-no change F6 Customers on the project team were assigned specific product development issues NOT used F7 Customers on the project team affected the final product specifications NOT used
Supplier Participation (integrative practice)
S1 Supplier participation on the project team was significant USED-edited S2 Supplier employees and project team members communicated directly USED-edited S3 Suppliers designed components for us NOT used S4 Suppliers were involved in the early stages of this project USED-no change S5 Suppliers performed the full product engineering for some components NOT used S6 We made use of supplier expertise in the development of this project USED-no change S7 We asked our suppliers for their input on the design of components NOT used
Appendix D: Pilot Study Draft Measure Question Disposition continued
Code Question Use in Full Research
Agile Development (speed)
A1 We used rapid development iterations USED-no change A2 We used overlapping design iterations USED-no change A3 We welcomed changing requirements even late in the process USED-edited A4 We gave continuous attention to technical excellence and good design NOT used A5 We gave all constituents equal status in evaluating iterations NOT used A6 We communicated using the richest means available USED-no change A7 Requirements evolved based on team learning NOT used A8 Requirements evolved based on changing needs NOT used A9 Self-organizing teams completed the product requirements NOT used
Early Feedback (speed)
E1 We involved many internal constituencies in the product development USED-edited E2 We requested early feedback from all constituencies NOT used E3 We aligned project objectives and incentives across all teams USED-no change E4 We collaborated with groups who were not previously known NOT used E5 All constituencies had responsibility to improve the product NOT used E6 Team members had many opportunities for interaction across all internal constituencies USED-edited E7 Team members were encouraged to exchange opinions/ideas USED-no change
Late Decision Making (speed)
L1 We made decisions as late possible NOT used L2 We monitored customers, competitors and markets for events requiring last minute design
changes
NOT used
L3 We developed multiple prototypes throughout the front end process USED-edited L4 We leveraged knowledge gained from changes in the external environment NOT used L5 We made design decisions as late as possible USED-no change L6 We performed experiments involving customers throughout the product's development USED-no change L7 We postponed product design freeze until the final iteration USED-no change
Appendix D: Pilot Study Draft Measure Question Disposition continued
Code Question Use in Full Research
Product Development Outcomes
O1 Sales relative to expectations USED-no change O2 Profit margin relative to expectations USED-no change O3 Return on assets relative to expectations NOT used O4 Return on investment relative to expectations NOT used O5 Customer satisfaction relative to expectations USED-no change O6 Customer loyalty relative to expectations NOT used O7 Customer growth relative to expectations NOT used O8 Market growth relative to expectations USED-edited O9 Time to market relative to expectations NOT used O10 Brand development relative to expectations NOT used
Uncertainty
U1 The information needed for product development was inadequate for our purposes NOT used U2 The information needed for product development was of uncertain usefulness USED-no change U3 The information needed for product development was too vague to be very helpful USED-no change U4 The information needed for product development was perceived as too inaccurate USED-no change U5 The information needed for product development was incomplete for our needs USED-edited U6 The information needed for product development did not exist USED-no change
Equivocality
V1 The information needed for product development was ambiguous USED-no change V2 The information needed for product development had multiple interpretations USED-no change V3 The information needed for product development was interpreted differently by team
members
USED-no change
V4 The information needed for product development had conflicting interpretations USED-no change V5 The information needed for product development was confusing because of different
interpretations
APPENDIX E