A Process For Designing A Value Chain For A New Product

A Management Project submitted to the Bradford University School of Management

by Barry Pearson

25th March 1997

A report of a project undertaken in 1996-1997 to evolve a Process for designing a value chain for an enterprise's new product or new system, taking into account life-cycle competence needs. (This followed a course I attended at the School during 1996-1997).

Commentary in 2002

Abstract

Managers often need to make investment decisions of the form "I need a new product/system - should I make it, re-use someone else's, collaborate?" A product itself cannot not create a sustainable advantage, while outsourcing contributes little to the competences needed to sustain product leadership. The ideal is that each such investment decision contributes not just to the product itself but to the future competence of the enterprise. A process is described for helping to identify the ideal value chain for the resources needed for a new product. The process is "open", so that as new management theory and practice is revealed, new aspects of management expertise can be accommodated.

Keywords

Product development; Life-cycle planning; Alliances; Competitive advantage; Comparative analysis; Resource management; Core competences; Value chain analysis

Contents

  1. Preface
  2. 1. Introduction
    1. 1.1 Objectives of the Process
    2. 1.2 The need for such a value chain process
    3. 1.3 Building on product or system development
    4. 1.4 Comparison: New Business Development Process
  3. 2. The Process
    1. 2.1 Reading this section
    2. 2.2 Psychology
    3. 2.3 Summary of the Process
  4. 3. Checklists for Comparing Options
    1. 3.1 About these checklists
    2. 3.2 The importance of life cycles
    3. 3.3 Cost checklist
    4. 3.4 Benefit checklist
    5. 3.5 Competence checklist
    6. 3.6 Collaboration checklist
    7. 3.7 Competition checklist
    4. Conclusions
    1. 4.1 Examples of use
    2. 4.2 Implications
    3. 4.3 Further work
    5. Bibliography
  5. Figures
  6. Tables
  7. Commentary in 2002

References