定义新产品策略外文文献翻译

中原工学院毕业设计外文翻译毕业设计外文翻译题目名称：对于新产品策略的研究和定义院系名称：国际教育学院班 级：营纺织124班学 号：4学生姓名：凡知非指导老师：赵志泉2016年3月对于新产品策略的研究和定义Robert G Cooperrobert摘要：新产品对于大多公司的成长和生存至关重要。新产品策略是公司的主要计划，它指导公司的产品创新力度，并链接企业的新产品开发计划。本文首先探讨什么是产品创新策略，其在公司中的作用，以及为什么创新策略是一个有效的新产品计划必不可少的一部分。接下来，本文着重于一个新产品策略的发展过程，从开发目标产品开始和再到产品开发领域的选择。文章使用到矩阵方法去定义和选择产品开发的领域。来源于笔者的实证研究数据在优先选择新产品开发的领域的模型中将会被用到。一、简介新产品是现代企业发展和繁荣的核心。越来越多的有见地的管理者认识到，一个新产品或新技术战略应该成为企业策略的明确和中心要素。这篇文章是关于在企业层面上的新产品策略关于对一个新的产品策略的需求和关于定义和开发这样一个战略。二、新产品策略的重要性新产品开发和技术通过帮助定义公司决策的范畴，对公司的战略性思维起到支撑性的完整的关系作用。对于许多公司来说，新的产品和技术已成为企业战略、开辟新的市场、新的商业机会的先驱。无数在办公室的未来，生物工程，微电子，机器人快速增长的公司表明，一个精心构思的新产品战略具有潜在发展势头。同样地，今天的许多企业巨头，如IBM，施乐，宝丽来德州仪器，在几十年前羽翼未丰的公司，如今能成为伟大的公司，就是因为管理者在早期做出了新产品决策。在开发和推出新产品上最有可能取得成功的公司就是那些明确核心新产品策略，为之实施公司的具体做法，驱使和带动企业目标及策略的公司。这些都是一些布兹-艾伦和汉密尔顿的关于商业惯例的研究结论。还有其他发现，在企业成功要素上，产品创新策略也起到至关重要的作用。有些公司制定这样的策略。例如，克劳福德在研究了125家公司后的研究结果中提出了产品创新章程。他指出，公司现在开始在一个文件中一起推出一个具有多功能元素的新产品策略，这个策略指定了市场类型，产品，技术和公司在新产品项目上追求的方向。三、问题忽视新产品的重要性，管理者从传统的模式的文献得到关于新产品策略的帮助微乎其微。很少指示被发展，用于协助管理者在新产品项目开发的领域和方向上做出。也就是说，基本没有几个概念框架，或成熟的方法来帮助制定新产品策略。此外，很少人做关于确定公司的新产品计划的组成和结果的实证研究：这就是，企业如何直接或间接地选择新的市场和技术领域，用不同方式组织和集中自己的研发成果。虽然在今天有很多战略发展模式被使用到，但是大多至少被公司现有的业务单位，现有的发展产品线使用到，它们一般涉及资源分配和战略发展而已。例如，各种组合模式被开发出来，基本变化遵循波士顿咨询集团模型现金奶牛，明星，狗和野猫。这些组合或资源分配模型被应用在产品开发的新领域的同时，这些模型也被主要开发应用在公司既有的产品或业务处理上。同样，另一种流行的战略发展援助模型，PIMS模型，着眼于可供选择的战略及其对企业盈利能力的影响，同样也是主要针对在公司现有业务的。总之，这些策略模型着重处理的是什么，而不是可能是什么。这些方法是模型缺乏一个生成和选择新的战略选项的系统程序，其中包括新产品和新业务。四、产品创新章程在商业竞争中，战略已被定义为“根据企业的资源和优势管理（部署）制定出的以诧异和超越竞争对手或利用机会的计划”。更具体地说，随着公司的产品或市场环境重新调整，战略的变化也随之重新定义。战略与产品和市场规范是紧密联系在一起的。科瑞指出，市场选择和产品划分是企业战略的两个关键维度。产品创新策略与企业策略密切相关，将变得更加具体。近年来，“产品创新章程”或PIC精简版已经被使用。PIC记录了企业新产品项目的所有策略。在产品发展项目和该公司的企业战略中，这也是必不可少的联系。4.1 PIC有两个关键要素：1、PIC指明了游戏的目标，产品创新在帮助企业实现其企业目标过程中扮演的角色。它回答了这个问题：新产品和产品创新在哪里与公司的整体规划相契合？3这个角色然后被转化成新产品计划的具体目标。报表，如“到1990年，我们的企业30的销售额将来自新产品，我们将在未来五年的开发和推出这些新产品”，就是在PIC中发现的典型目标。2、PIC指明了比赛进行的具体区域。即，它定义了类型的市场，市场适应者，技术和新产品项目专注的产品。这些领域为企业的产品开发项目提供了一个重点。五、为什么会有产品创新章程？开发PIC是艰苦的工作。它涉及到很多人，特别是高层管理人员。那么，为什么会付出所有的努力？我们大多数人或许可以说出很多没有一个新产品项目总体规划的企业。他们是如何做到的？5.1 没有创新章程下开展业务在没有PIC下运行一个创新项目就像在打一场没有重点军事战略的仗。在没有舵，没有方向的时候，没到彼岸我们早已沉没。一个没有PIC的新产品项目将不可避免地导致每个人做出一些各自独立的临时的决定。新产品研发项目的启动仅仅参照各自的长处，很少考虑到他们是否适合宏大的项目。其结果是，该公司发现自己身处无关或不必要的市场，产品和技术。5.2 目标：与企业战略链接一个PIC给予公司的新产品项目什么类型的方向指引呢？首先，PIC的目标使得产品开发成功与公司战略紧密联系在一起。新产品的开发，成为企业战略的核心组成部分，成为公司的整体战略平台一块关键的木板，往往是理所当然的。预算费用承诺的问题正通过定义新产品项目的角色和目标来处理研发项目或新产品的产品预算问题在经济困难时期经常不能幸免于难。在一些公司中，研发项目被认为是软金钱一种奢侈品。但是，随着产品创新作为公司战略中的核心面，产品创新的角色和目标牢固地确立起来，缩减这个预算会变得没那么随意。要有连续性的利用资源致力于新产品。5.3范畴指导规范游戏计划PIC的第二个方面，即范畴的定义，对于指导和专注于新产品成果非常关键。新产品的开发过程中的第一步是创意产生。但是，新产品的创意如何产生？除非限定范畴的，否则结果就像散射枪击打的结果一样，无方向，重点不突出，无效！在新产品开发过程中的第二个关键步骤的创意筛选。早期筛选创意的第一标准是：“所提及的产品是否属于公司新产品项目的强制任务？这也可以解释成：我们作为一家公司什么样的市场，产品，技术，是否对我们公平？如果没有公平的游戏的定义范畴有利于对试图做出有效的创意筛选！范畴的定义也引导着资源和人力资源计划。如果某些市场被指定为重点市场，那么企业可以收购资源，技能和知识，以能够更好地打开那些市场。同样，如果目标技术被挑选出来作为重点，企业可以雇佣和获取资源，以加强其在这些领域的能力。资源的建设不是一朝一夕的事。在片刻的注意间人们不可能雇佣到一支销售队伍，没有人可以在当地的超市上获得大量重要的，在特定技术上有作为的研究人员或工程师。把合适的人，资源和技能用到合适的地方，需要领先时间和方向，因此需要进行定义范畴重点。5.4 证据在哪儿？PIC理论的论断，虽然有逻辑性，但看起来似乎还是有点学术性。不禁会让人想起那些想那些没有宏伟的产品创新策略却已经成功的公司。那么，哪来的证据支持PIC理论呢？，很遗憾的是并没有太多证据，原因之一是关于创新策略的作用和影响的研究调查并不是很多。大多数关于产品创新的商业研究一直专注于以个别产品项目为单位来进行分析，例如，是什么让一个新产品成功，而不是对整个公司的新产品计划。关于企业的新产品策略的研究，传递了一个清晰及一贯的信息：新产品策略在企业层面来说是成功的关键，而一些策略显然比其他策略做得更好。业层面来说是成功的关键，而一些策略显然比其他策略做得更好。1、布兹-艾伦和汉密尔顿的关于企业新产品策略实践的研究发现：“成功的企业更致力于通过内部的新产品来实现增长”，并认为“他们更容易有一个包括来源于新产品的若干部分发展的战略计划”。研究的作者继续解释为什么成功与拥有新产品策略息息相关：新产品战略把新产品的开发过程链接到公司的目标，并为想法/概念的产生提供焦点和建立适当的筛选标准。这一战略分析的结果是一组战略性的角色，不是用来产生特定的新产品的创意，但却可以帮助确定将新产品开发的市场。这些市场机会提供产品组合和新产品创意的产生的市场需求。此外，战略角色为新产品表现测评标准提供指引。性能阈值和战略角色一起为筛选新的产品理念提供了更精确的手段。2、PIMS研究（利润影响市场战略）考虑了新产品策略的影响，但仅限于在外围方法。这些研究侧重于为什么某些特定业务单元比其他的更有利可图，并且试图把盈利能力与市场策略相连接起来等。研发项目的支出和产品质量水平是在研究中众多被考虑到的策略因素中的两个变量，发现两个因素均与盈利能力紧密相连（虽然研究的反对者在因果关系的方向上有争论）。3、奈斯特龙和爱德华松研究了大量的工业产品企业，并确定了各种新产品策略捆绑如何与企业表现相关联。策略强调协同技术的运用，一个负责任的研发项目组织和一个外向型的研发成功一般比较顺利。这项研究局限于只有极少数的战略维度，而且研发项目策略与新产品研发策略是有不同的。尽管如此，该消息显示新产品策略和业绩表现密切相关。4、我们自己的研究涉及到产品创新策略对120家企业表现的影响。这项研究是少数考虑到大量策略维度，和在大量公司中，策略是如何与公司表现联系在一起的调查之一。最重要的结论是，产品创新策略和业绩表现是强烈联系在一起的。市场、产品和公司选择技术的类型、方位和他们的产品创新计划的方向对项目的成功和盈利能力有着明显的影响。策略的确非常重要！5.5选择正确范畴的证据我们的调查提供远不止策略表现的强烈暗示。该研究深入洞察一个成功的创新策略的成分：目标的类型是合理的和可测量的；有利于选择范畴的标准产品、市场和公司选择成功的技术的种类。下面是一些更重要的结论，我们稍后在范畴的选择的部分将会用到：1、大量影响公司新产品表现的策略因素被发现。这些因素适合分为两类：一类是他们描述了公司已选择的新产品范畴的类型，一类是他们获得的公司如何完成任务的基础。2、获得竞争基础的因素描绘了新产品项目的方向和目标。他们包括诸如技术的侵略性和复杂性的因素，市场导向，项目的重点，研发支出等有利于指引如何在新的产品项目的进行导向和管理。3、描述范畴选择的因素构成了第二类因素，影响着后续项目的表现。这些可以被进一步细分为如下因素：1区域范畴的吸引力（例如，市场的需求，成长和规模，在区域范畴内技术的可操作性等）；2公司的利用区域范畴的实力或能力（例如，在公司资源和新产品开发区域范畴内的适应和协调能力）。在随后的分析中，我们可以把不同因素赋予权重每个因素在“成功等式”中有多重要。这些因素和它们的权重我们如表1所示，我们用表1为选择争取的区域范畴提供的重要标准和权重。然而要告诫读者的是，这些权重来自一项研究，并作为指导或区域范畴选择的标准点。六、创新章程的发展很少人能否认有一个产品创新策略章程来指导公司新产品的取得成功的重要性。但如何去开发这样的章程？文章的其余部分着手处理建立PIC模型的艰难考验。一连串熟悉的概念：业务定义计划和投资组合战略模型，形成章程发展的基础。但这些模型已经在被整合和修改在一写书籍中，以适用于提供新产品的机会，而不是为了私人业务；进一步地说，我们已经从研究中纳入国家的需求，以帮助量化新产品开发的区域范畴。6.1设定目标为一个产品开发计划的设定目标是至关重要的，也是我们大多数人接受的前提。然而，我们的战略研究表明，许多企业实际上在他们的创新项目缺乏书面的，可衡量的目标。在创新章程中应包括哪些类型的目标？首先，目标应该是可衡量的，可量化的。其次，他们应该把新产品项目和整个公司战略结合起来。最后，他们必须给新产品团队的目的感，并帮助他们做出决定。在决定一个合理的新产品项目目标组合，考虑以下一些类型。6.2目标角色新产品的目标的一种类型，要聚焦于在实现企业目标过程中新产品所扮演的角色。例子包括：1、在5年内，公司新产品销售额的百分比来自于这五年时期内推出的新产品。（五年是普遍接受的时间跨度，这五年内产品可以被认为“新”。）另外，可以说绝对销售额（第五年新产品的销售额），而不是相对销售或百分比。2、企业第五年利润的百分比（总量，贡献，或净额），来源于在这5年的跨度内已经推出的新产品。同样绝对美元可以用相对利润来代替。3、另外，这些销售和利润目标，可表示作为企业成长的百分比。例如：70的公司销售增长将来源于未来五年内推出的新产品。英文原文Defining the New Product StrategyRobert G CooperrobertAbstractNew products are critical to the growth and survival of most corporations. The new product strategy is the master plan that guides the product innovation efforts of the firm, and links new product development to the corporate plan. This article looks first at what a product innovation strategy is, its role in the corporation, and why an innovation strategy is essential to an effective new product program. Next, the article focuses on the development of a new product strategy, beginning with objectives and moving to arena selection. A matrix approach to arena definition and selection is used. Empirical data from research by the author is employed in the model to prioritize new product arenas. INTRODUCTION NEW products are central to the growth and prosperity ofthe modern corporation. Increasingly, progressive managementsrecognize that a new product or technology strategyshould be an explicit and central element of the corporatestrategy. This article is about new productstrategy at the corporate levelabout the need for a newproduct strategy, and about defining and developing such astrategy. THE IMPORTANCE OF A NEW PRODUCT STRATEGYNew product development and technology bear an integralrelationship to a companys strategic thinking by helping todefine the range of that companys choices . For manycompanies, new products and technologies have become theleading edge of corporate strategy, opening up new market andnew business opportunities. The rapid growth of countlessfirms in office-of-the-future, bioengineering, microelectronics,and robotics is evidence of the growth potential of awell conceived new product strategy. Similarly, many oftodays corporate giants, such as Xerox, IBM, Polaroid, andTexas Instruments, were fledgling companies only decadesago, but became great because of new product choices madeby management in earlier years.New product development and technology bear an integralrelationship to a companys strategic thinking by helping todefine the range of that companys choices . For manycompanies, new products and technologies have become theleading edge of corporate strategy, opening up new market andnew business opportunities. The rapid growth of countlessfirms in office-of-the-future, bioengineering, microelectronics,and robotics is evidence of the growth potential of awell conceived new product strategy. Similarly, many oftodays corporate giants, such as Xerox, IBM, Polaroid, andTexas Instruments, were fledgling companies only decadesago, but became great because of new product choices madeby management in earlier years. New product development and technology bear an integralrelationship to a companys strategic thinking by helping todefine the range of that companys choices . For manycompanies, new products and technologies have become theleading edge of corporate strategy, opening up new market andnew business opportunities. The rapid growth of countlessfirms in office-of-the-future, bioengineering, microelectronics,and robotics is evidence of the growth potential of awell conceived new product strategy. Similarly, many oftodays corporate giants, such as Xerox, IBM, Polaroid, andTexas Instruments, were fledgling companies only decadesago, but became great because of new product choices madeby management in earlier years.wheredo new products and product innovation fit in thecompanys overall plan? This role then is translated intospecific objectives for the new product program. Statementssuch as By 1990, 30 percent of our corporatesales will come from new productsproducts that we willdevelop and launch in the next five years are typicalobjectives found in the PIC. The PIC specifies the arenas in which the game will beplayed. That is, it defines the types of markets, marketapplications, technologies, and products that the newproduct program will focus on. These arenas provide afocus to the firms product development program. WHYHAVE A PRODUCTINNOVATION CHARTER AT ALL? Developing a PIC is hard work. It involves many people,especially top management. Why, then, go to all the effort?Most of us can probably name countless firms that do notappear to have a master plan for their new product program.How did they get by? Doing Business without an innovation Charter Running an innovation program without a PIC like runninga war without a master military strategy. Theres no rudder,theres no direction, and often, we dont end up where wedlike to be. A new product program without a PIC will inevitably leadto a number of ad hoc decisions made independently of eachother. New product and R&D projects are initiated solely ontheir own merits, with little regard to their fit into the granderscheme. The result is that the firm finds itself in unrelated orunwanted markets, products, and technologies. Objectives: The Link to Corporate Strategy What types of direction does a PIC give a firms newproduct program? First, the objectives of a PIC tie the productdevelopment effort tightly to the firms corporate strategy.New product development, so often taken for granted,becomes a central part of the corporate strategy, a key plank inthe companys overall strategic platform. The question of spending commitment is dealt with bydefining the role and objectives of the new product program.Too often, the R&D or new product budget is easy prey inhard economic times. In some firms, R&D is viewed as softmoneya luxury. But with product innovation as a centralfacet of the firms corporate strategy, with the role andobjectives of product innovation firmly established, cuttingthis budget becomes less arbitrary. There is continuity to theresource commitment to new products. The Arenas: Guiding the Game Plan The second facet of the PIC, the definition of arenas, iscritical to guiding and focusing the new product efforts (seeFig. 1). The first step in the new product process is ideageneration. But where does one search for new product ideas?Unless the arenas are defined, the result is a scatter gun searcheffort, undirected, unfocused, and ineffective! A second key step in the new product process is ideascreening. The first criterion for this early GO/KILL decisionis: Does the proposed product fall within the companysmandate for its new product program? This usuallytranslates into: is this the kind of market, product, andtechnology that we as a company have decided is fair game forus? Without a definition of fair gamearenasgood luck intrying to make an effective screening decision! The definition of arenas also guides resource and manpowerplanning. If certain markets are designated top priority arenas,then the firm can acquire resources, skills, and knowledge tobe better able to attack those markets. Similarly, if certaintechnologies are singled out as arenas, the firm can hire andacquire resources to bolster its abilities in those fields.Resource building doesnt happen overnight. One cant buy asalesforce on a moments notice; and one cant acquire acritical mass of key researchers or engineers in a certaintechnology at the local supermarket. Putting the right people,resources, and skills in place takes both lead time and adirection, hence the need for the definition of arenas. Wheres the Evidence? The argument for a PIC, although logical, appears somewhatacademic. One cant help but think about all thosecompanies that have succeeded without a grand strategy forproduct innovation. Then wheres the evidence in support of aPIC? There isnt much, unfortunately. One reason is that nottoo many studies have investigated the role and impact of aninnovation strategy. Most of the business research into productinnovation has focused on the individual product project as theunit of analysisfor example, on what makes a new product asuccessrather than on the companys entire new productprogram. The studies that have looked at firms new productstrategies have a clear and consistent message: new productstrategies at the firm level are critical to success, and somestrategies clearly work better than others. Booz-Allen and Hamiltons study of new product practicesin corporations found that successful companiesare more committed to growth through new productsdeveloped internally; and that they are more likelyto have a strategic plan that includes a certain portion ofgrowth from new products. The authors of this study goon to explain why having a new product strategy was tiedto success: A new product strategy links the new product process tocompany objectives, and provides focus for idea/conceptgeneration and for establishing appropriate screening criteria.The outcome of this strategy analysis is a set of strategic roles,used not to generate specific new product ideas, but to helpidentify markets for which new products will be developed.These market opportunities provide the set of product andmarket requirements from which new product ideas aregenerated. In addition, strategic roles provide guidelines fornew product performance measurement criteria. Performancethresholds tied to strategic roles provide a more precise meansof screening new product ideas. The PIMS studies (profit impact of market strategy)considered new product strategies, but in only a peripheralway. These studies looked at why certainbusiness units were more profitable than others, andattempted to link profitability to the market strategyelected. R&D spending and product quality level weretwo of many strategy variables considered in thesestudies, and both were found to be closely connected toprofitability (although detractors of the studies argueabout direction of causality).the kind of market, product, andtechnology that we as a company have decided is fair game forus? Without a definition of fair gamearenasgood luck intrying to make an effective screening decision! The definition of arenas also guides resource and manpowerplanning. If certain markets are designated top priority arenas,then the firm can acquire resources, skills, and knowledge tobe better able to attack those markets. Similarly, if certaintechnologies are singled out as arenas, the firm can hire andacquire resources to bolster its abilities in those fields.Resource building doesnt happen overnight. One cant buy asalesforce on a moments notice; and one cant acquire acritical mass of key researchers or engineers in a certaintechnology at the local supermarket. Putting the right people,resources, and skills in place takes both lead time and adirection, hence the need for the definition of arenas. Wheres the Evidence? The argument for a PIC, although logical, appears somewhatacademic. One cant help but think about all thosecompanies that have succeeded without a grand strategy forproduct innovation. Then wheres the evidence in support of aPIC? There isnt much, unfortunately. One reason is that nottoo many studies have investigated the role and impact of aninnovation strategy. Most of the business research into productinnovation has focused on the individual product project as theunit of analysisfor example, on what makes a new product asuccessrather than on the companys entire new productprogram. The studies that have looked at firms new productstrategies have a clear and consistent message: new productstrategies at the firm level are critical to success, and somestrategies clearly work better than others. Booz-Allen and Hamiltons study of new product practicesin corporations found that successful companiesare more committed to growth through new productsdeveloped internally; and that they are more likelyto have a strategic plan that includes a certain portion ofgrowth from new products. The authors of this study goon to explain why having a new product strategy was tiedto success: A new product strategy links the new product process tocompany objectives, and provides focus for idea/conceptgeneration and for establishing appropriate screening criteria.The outcome of this strategy analysis is a set of strategic roles,used not to generate specific new product ideas, but to helpidentify markets for which new products will be developed.These market opportunities provide the set of product andmarket requirements from which new product ideas aregenerated. In addition, strategic roles provide guidelines fornew product performance measurement criteria. Performancethresholds tied to strategic roles provide a more precise meansof screening new product ideas. The PIMS studies (profit impact of market strategy)considered new product strategies, but in only a pe