PRODUCT DESIGN AND INNOVATION

Product Design and Innovation

Product Design and Innovation

Introduction

The world class manufacturing (WCM) initiative recently launched by the UK government was at least partially in response to concern about the competitiveness of the country's small- and medium-sized manufacturers. Initiatives such as the WCM, among a number of objectives, are intended to provide bench-marking criteria against which firms' owners and managers may measure their performance and success. With similar objectives, there are a number of award schemes sponsored by organisations with specific interests (e.g. exporting and innovation), aimed at acknowledging the performance of firms, which have been judged successful by their own criteria.

Clearly, UK policy makers responsible for such awards are aware of the need to keep the criteria for selecting winners flexible in light of rapidly changing technologies, shortening product cycles and latterly, massive restructuring of industry on an international scale. Industrial bench-marks, which provide specific criteria for firms to follow, need to be established and publicised with care lest they are seen as a “recipe for success” and applied inappropriately by succeeding generations of firms. This is especially the case where generalisations concerning successful operations are made between trade sectors, sizes of firms and the like, since policy makers are aware that operations are contingent on particular circumstances. This said, attempts have been made to recognise successful operations within various areas of UK industry, but such efforts tend to be limited to the publication of a few case histories of successful firms.

The annual Queen's Award for Technological Achievement, going by the publicity surrounding the event, could be considered one of the foremost awards for technology in the UK. In response to changing environmental and industrial practices, the criteria for winning the award contain a degree of flexibility: “your company must show a significant advance, leading to increased efficiency of technology, to a production or development process, or the production for sale of goods which incorporate new and advanced technological qualities” (see the Queen's Award criteria information booklet). Although names of the winners are published, the specific reason for winning the award within the overall criteria is not clear. Furthermore, although general factors associated with some individual winners are published, lessons and characteristics based on best strategic practices are not published, preventing other firms from learning from winners of the award. Where this particular award could provide valuable bench-marks for technology-based firms on issues specific to their particular needs, it does very little in that respect. Clearly, the usefulness of the award as a bench-mark, i.e. learning opportunity for other firms, is limited.

In dynamic and turbulent markets such as those facing small technology-based firms, the speed with which information can be assimilated into practice is essential for their survival and success. It follows that a need exists for policy makers to more effectively publicise successful operations of particular firms in order that other businesses may learn from them. Publication of an annual synthesis of the aggregate performance of winners would go a long way to achieving that goal while ...