Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Technology Entrepreneurship pp 71–98Cite as

Identifying and Categorizing Risks of New Product Development in a Small Technology-Driven Company

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1565 Accesses

Part of the book series: FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship ((FGFS))

Abstract

New product development (NPD), as a locus of the innovative potential of organizations, plays an essential role in small technology-driven company survival. To address the research gap and fulfill the companies’ needs, this survey aims to post and verify a new, simple and not time-consuming methodology for risk identification and categorization of industrial products development. To check the hypothesis that NPD project technical, cost and schedule sets of risks could be categorized as both threats and opportunities, an experiment was conducted in a small Serbian enterprise that has developed 52 innovative solid state based lighting products for outdoor lighting infrastructure. There were 69 identified risks (51 threats and 18 opportunities) that through 76 factors influence new products’ technical characteristics, schedule and cost. Explorative factor analysis was applied to reduce and compress the data and 26 composite factors were obtained as valid predictors of the NPD project results. Regarding the technical characteristics risks, the threats can be grouped into four factors consisting of six risk types, while opportunities can be grouped into two factors consisting of four risk categories. The risks influencing the schedule disturbance that act as threats are grouped into eight factors consisting of ten risk types, while those that could be used in opportunities are grouped in four factors with eight risks identified. The risks influencing the costs that threaten the project are recognized as five factors described by seven risks, while those that act as opportunities are grouped into three factors described by five variables in total.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alhawari, S., Thabtah, F., Karadsheh, L., & Hadi, W. M. (2008). A risk management model for project execution. Proceedings of the 9th International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA), Marrakech, Conference on Information Management in Modern Organizations: Trends&Challenges (pp. 887–893).

    Google Scholar 

  • Almus, M., & Nerlinger, E. A. (1999). Growth of new technology-based firms: Which factors matter? Small Business Economics, 13(2), 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnsfeld, T., Berkau, C., & Frey, A. (2007). Risikomanagement im Mittelstand: Luxus oder Notwendigkeit. Controller Magazin, 32(5), 488–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, I., & Raz, T. (2001). An integrated approach for risk response development in project planning. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Reymen, I., & Stultiëns, R. (2014). Product innovation processes in small firms: Combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 616–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, A., Sweeting, R., & Holt, R. (2007, September). Constructing risk management: Framing and reflexivity of small firm owner-managers. In Proceedings of the 1st European Risk Management Conference (pp. 5–7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanc Alquier, A. M., & Lagasse Tignol, M. H. (2006). Risk management in small-and medium-sized enterprises. Production Planning & Control, 17(3), 273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, G., Mehta, B., Bose, S., Pekny, J., Sinclair, G., Keunker, K., & Bunch, P. (2000). Risk management in the development of new products in highly regulated industries. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24(2), 659–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bose, S., & Blau, G. E. (2000). Use of a network model interface to build spreadsheet models of process systems: A productivity enhancement tool for risk management studies. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24(2), 1511–1515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brancia, A. (2011). SMES risk management: An analysis of the existing literature considering the different risk streams. 8th AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange (pp. 225–239).

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, T. R., Deyst, J. J., Eppinger, S. D., & Whitney, D. E. (2002). Adding value in product development by creating information and reducing risk. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4), 443–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning, T. R., & Hillson, D. A. (2003). A quantitative framework for multi-dimensional risk and opportunity management. TCU Neeley School of Business, Working Paper, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, T. A., & Tippett, D. D. (2004). Project risk management using the project risk FMEA. Engineering Management Journal, 16(4), 28–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellion, G., & Markham, S. K. (2013). Perspective: New product failure rates: Influence of argumentum ad populum and self-interest. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 976–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, S., & Modarres, M. (2005). Compressed natural gas bus safety: A quantitative risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 25(2), 377–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, K. S., Tang, D. W., Yang, J. B., Wong, S. Y., & Wang, H. (2009). Assessing new product development project risk by Bayesian network with a systematic probability generation methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 9879–9890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conforto, E. C., & Amaral, D. C. (2016). Agile project management and stage-gate model—A hybrid framework for technology-based companies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 40, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, L. P. (2003). A research agenda to reduce risk in new product development through knowledge management: A practitioner perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1), 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2006). Managing technology development project. Research Technology Management, 49(6), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, H. R., Barros, M. D. O., & Travassos, G. H. (2007). Evaluating software project portfolio risks. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(1), 16–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 246–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E., Lee, J., & Yang, Z. (2015). The timing of codevelopment alliances in new product development processes: Returns for upstream and downstream partners. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, G., Schlesinger, H., & Stapleton, R. C. (2006). Multiplicative background risk. Management Science, 52(1), 146–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galway, L. (2004). Quantitative risk analysis for project management. A critical review. WR-112-RC. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2004/RAND_WR112.pdf

  • Ganotakis, P. (2012). Founders’ human capital and the performance of UK new technology based firms. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 495–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrick, B. J. (1989). Risk assessment practices in the space industry: The move toward quantification. Risk Analysis, 9(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gidel, T., Gautier, R., & Duchamp, R. (2005). Decision-making framework methodology: An original approach to project risk management in new product design. Journal of Engineering Design, 16(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouriveau, R., & Noyes, D. (2004). Risk management–dependability tools and case-based reasoning integration using the object formalism. Computers in Industry, 55(3), 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., & Brown, T. E. (2015). Resources in small firms: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 8(2), 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hao, S., & Song, M. (2016). Technology-driven strategy and firm performance: Are strategic capabilities missing links? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 751–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henschel, T. (2009). Implementing a holistic risk management for small and medium-sized enterprises. Conference Proceedings of the 54th Annual World Conference of the International Council for Small Business, Seoul, Korea (pp. 21–24).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillson, D. (2000). Project risks: Identifying causes, risks, and effects accuracy is essential; and good techniques exist that simplify the process and eliminate confusion. PM Network, 14(9), 48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillson, D. (2002). Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 235–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huchzermeier, A., & Loch, C. H. (2001). Project management under risk: Using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Management Science, 47(1), 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II) 2014–2020. (2015). SERBIA, Support to the competitiveness sector. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2015/2014-032799.05-serbia-support_to_the_competitiveness_sector.pdf

  • IPMA (2006). ICB - IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0. Nijkerk, The Netherlands: International Project Management Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, M. A., Tedford, J. D., & Haemmerle, E. (2008). Managing operational risks in Small-and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) engaged in manufacturing-an integrated approach. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 8(4), 420–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (1999). Risks to different aspects of system success. Information & Management, 36(5), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, K. B., Castellion, G., & Griffin, A. (Eds.). (2005). The PDMA handbook of new product development. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., Haimes, Y. Y., & Garrick, B. J. (2001). Fitting hierarchical holographic modeling into the theory of scenario structuring and a resulting refinement to the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 21(5), 807–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayis, B., Arndt, G., & Zhou, M. (2007). A risk mitigation methodology for new product and process design in concurrent engineering projects. CIRP ANNALS Manufacturing Technology, 56(1), 167–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keizer, J. A., Vos, J., & Halman, J. I. M. (2005). Risks in new product development: Devising a reference tool. R & D Management, 35(3), 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerzner, H. R. (2013). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klarin, M., Milanovic, D. D., Misita, M., Spasojevic-Brkic, V., & Jovovic, A. (2010). A method to assess capacity utilization in short cycle functional layouts. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering, 224(1), 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klarin, M. M., Cvijanovic, J. M., & Brkic, V. S. (2000). The shift level of the utilization of capacity as the stochastic variable in work sampling. International Journal of Production Research, 38(12), 2643–2651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, R. L. (2002). Managing risks in IT projects: An options perspective. Information & Management, 40(1), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, Y. H., & LaPlace, K. S. (2005). Examining risk tolerance in project-driven organization. Technovation, 25(6), 691–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leithold, N., Haase, H., & Lautenschläger, A. (2016). Cooperation in new product development: An analysis of small technology-based firms. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopoulos, V. N., Kirytopoulos, K. A., & Malandrakis, C. (2006). Risk management for SMEs: Tools to use and how. Production Planning & Control, 17(3), 322–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. C., Liu, L., & Liu, N. (2013). Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 828–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfqvist, L. (2010). Product and process novelty in small companies’ design processes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 405–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcelino-Sádaba, S., Pérez-Ezcurdia, A., Lazcano, A. M. E., & Villanueva, P. (2014). Project risk management methodology for small firms. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. B. (2007). The external environment’s effect on management and strategy: A complexity theory approach. Management Decision, 45(1), 10–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen, H. (1990). Risk management in product development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 8(4), 217–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R., & Lessard, D. (2001). Understanding and managing risks in large engineering projects. International Journal of Project Management, 19(8), 437–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ninkovic, D., Sedmak, A., Kirin, S., Rakonjac, I., & Misita, M. (2012). Information-communication and documentation flow within R&D function model. Technics Technologies Education Management-TTEM, 7(1), 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (1994). Innovation and diffusion in small firms: Theory and evidence. Small Business Economics, 6(5), 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oehmen, J., Olechowski, A., Kenley, C. R., & Ben-Daya, M. (2014). Analysis of the effect of risk management practices on the performance of new product development programs. Technovation, 34(8), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogawa, S., & Piller, F. T. (2006). Reducing the risks of new product development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paté Cornell, E. (2002). Finding and fixing systems weaknesses: Probabilistic methods and applications of engineering risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 22(2), 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petti, C. (2016). Technology-driven entrepreneurship in emerging regions. In G. Passiante & A. Romano (Eds.), Creating technology-driven entrepreneurship (pp. 241–272). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, M. (2002, May). A value and risk management approach to project development. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering, 150(2), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PMI. (2008). Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3) knowledge foundation (2nd ed.). Newtown Square: Project Management Institute (PMI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, C. L., & PMI-RMP PMP. (2014). Risk management: Concepts and guidance. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puente, J., Pino, R., Priore, P., & de la Fuente, D. (2002). A decision support system for applying failure mode and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(2), 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakonjac, I., & Jednak, J. (2012). Sinergy of digital university and digital enterprise: Management of innovative activities. Moving PM Competence Forward, pp. 46–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakonjac, I., Rakonjac, I., Kirin, S., Spasojevic Brkic, V., & Sedmak, A. (2011). Risk analysis by key-coefficient assessment-public lighting project example. Technics Technologies Education Management-TTEM, 6(4), 1016–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravi Sankar, N., & Prabhu, B. S. (2001). Modified approach for prioritization of failures in a system failure mode and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(3), 324–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segismundo, A., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2008). Risk management in the development of new products: A review and classification of the literature. Product: Management & Development, 6(1), 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, E., O’loughlin, A., & McFadzean, E. (2005). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation part 2: A role-and process-based approach. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(4), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A. J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., & Lechler, T. (2002). Refining the search for project success factors: A multivariate, typological approach. R&D Management, 32(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, S. V., & Rathod, U. (2015). Categorization of risk factors for distributed agile projects. Information and Software Technology, 58, 373–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavković, G., Budimir, J. S., Rakonjac, M. I., Jarić, S. M., & Budimir, J. N. (2014). Techno-economic analysis of heat exchangers with parallel helical tube coils. Technical Gazette, 21(4), 861–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spasojević Brkić, V., Klarin, M., Stanisavljev, S., Brkić, A., & Sajfert, Z. (2016). Reduction of production cycle time by optimising production and non-production components of time in the metalworking industry: A case study. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 27(1), 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spasojevic Brkic, V. K., Djurdjevic, T., Dondur, N., Klarin, M. M., & Tomic, B. (2013). An empirical examination of the impact of quality tools application on business performance: Evidence from Serbia. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(5–6), 607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanisavljev, S., Ćoćkalo, D., Klarin, M., Spasojević, B. V., & Đorđević, D. (2015). Stohastic model to determine the elements of the production cycle time: Case of Serbian textile industry. Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe, 23(5), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talay, M. B., Calantone, R. J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2014). Coevolutionary dynamics of automotive competition: Product innovation, change, and marketplace survival. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., Fischer, E., Mitchell, R., & Phan, P. (2009). At the center of the action: Innovation and technology strategy research in the small business setting. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 233–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thamhain, H. (2013). Managing risks in complex projects. Project Management Journal, 44(2), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trammell, S. R., Lorenzo, D. K., & Davis, B. J. (2003, January). Integrated hazards analysis: Using the strengths of multiple methods to maximize effectiveness. In ASSE professional development conference and exposition. Park Ridge, IL: American Society of Safety Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhaverbeke, W., Vermeersch, I., & De Zutter, S. (2012). Open innovation in SMEs: How can small companies and start-ups benefit from open innovation strategies? Research report. Leuven: Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Flanders DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendrell-Herrero, F., González-Pernía, J. L., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2014). Do incentives matter to promote high technology-driven entrepreneurial activity? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(1), 43–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. (2008). The role of SMEs in innovation in the EU: A case for policy intervention? Review of Business and Economics, 53(3), 239–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F. K., Yeh, C. T., & Chu, T. P. (2016). Using the design for Six Sigma approach with TRIZ for new product development. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 98, 522–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Lin, Y. I. (2009). An overlapping process model to assess schedule risk for new product development. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 57(2), 460–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. L. (2000). Project management terms: a working glossary. Arlington, VA: ESI Intl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlfeil, F., & Terzidis, O. (2015). A critical success factors model for radical technological innovations. In XXVI ISPIM Conference—Shaping the Frontiers of Innovation Management, Budapest, Hungary (pp. 3134–3142).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, F. J., Hwang, S. L., & Huang, Y. H. (1999). Task analysis for industrial work process from aspects of human reliability and system safety. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 401–415.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This survey has been partially funded by MESTD grant no. TR 35017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Project and Innovation Management, Educons University, Belgrade, Serbia

    Ivan Rakonjac

  2. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Vesna Spasojević Brkić

Authors
  1. Ivan Rakonjac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vesna Spasojević Brkić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vesna Spasojević Brkić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bolzano, Bozen, Italy

    André Presse

  2. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Orestis Terzidis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rakonjac, I., Spasojević Brkić, V. (2018). Identifying and Categorizing Risks of New Product Development in a Small Technology-Driven Company. In: Presse, A., Terzidis, O. (eds) Technology Entrepreneurship. FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73509-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation