A comparative study of six stage-gate approaches to
product development
Keywords
Product development,
Process efficiency,
Manufacturing, Teams
Abstract
Some companies to aid the pro-
duct development process have
implemented a stage-gate frame-
work, as a high-level representa-
tion of the activities required.
Such a framework allows the
development process to be closely
monitored and controlled, using
stages of work and review gates.
Six different companies have been
examined to show the variations in
representation. Each approach
was compared to a generic four-
staged framework. Companies
which are organised mainly in
cross-functional teams adhere
strongly to the four stages,
namely a low-phased approach.
However, companies organised
with a strong functional structure
tend to have more phases and
gates within each stage, i.e. a
high-phased approach. These ad-
ditional phases tend to be placed
late in the product development
process rather than at the start
where their effect would be great-
er. A generic representation of the
product development process
applicable to various organisa-
tions and industrial sectors, pro-
vides an architecture for carrying
out any business process im-
provement project.
The authors would like to
thank the EPSRC for
sponsoring the CAPS
project, in which some of
the findings of this report
has been researched.
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/5 [1999] 289±297
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0957-6061]
Rachel Phillips
Parametric Technology (UK), Coventry, UK
Kevin Neailey
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Trevor Broughton
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Introduction
Companies today are competing within an
environment that is global, intense and
dynamic. Many forward thinking organisa-
tions are using new business strategies, new
organisational approaches, new business
processes and new enabling technology, to
continually improve their product develop-
ment process.
Research has shown that product develop-
ment is a vital process for most manufactur-
ing firms' growth and prosperity (Zirger and
Maidique, 1990). The product development
process is the means by which new products
or services are developed from identification
of the need to launch into the market, as a
tangible product or service. It incorporates
numerous activities, from marketing
through to manufacture and sales.
This work compares six different compa-
nies' stage-gate approaches to the product
development process. The six product devel-
opment stage gate approaches were collated
and compared and contrasted against a
generic four-staged framework, derived from
this research for use as a control. The
similarities in approaches were examined
and then supporting information on each of
the organisations gathered. The organisa-
tional structure and the product background
were some of the significant factors used to
provide support to the research findings; the
six different companies examined adopt two
general approaches.
The generic stage gate representation will
provide a high level reference which can be
used as a standard across the engineering/
manufacturing industry. The overall archi-
tecture and understanding will facilitate both
Business Process Improvement initiatives
and provide a standard for comparing
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
product development performance among
competitors, a key issue for success.
External and internal dimensions
of product development
External
Wheelwright and Clark (1992) highlight three
critical driving forces behind the product
development process:
1 Intense international competition. In-
creased number of competitors capable of
competing at world-class level.
2 Fragmented, demanding markets. Custo-
mers demand high levels of performance
and reliability.
3 Diverse and rapidly changing technologies.
Increased knowledge and existence of
technology.
Internal
The success of a project based on introducing
a new product into a market, will be reflected
in the management of the product perfor-
mance against the time and cost of producing
the right product:
. Product performance. The product must
meet the demands in the market for value,
reliability, and distinctive performance.
. Product development time. Speed of devel-
opment is imperative, as it will allow the
firm to ultimately bring the new product
to the market early.
. Product development cost. Development
cost will dictate the product's cost.
Rosenau (1993) refers to these three dimen-
sions as the triple constraint (Figure 1). It is a
diagrammatic format of the factors affecting
the product development process within the
organisation. During the development of a
new product, all three constraints will be
changing continually. The diagram shows
the three constraints as orthogonal. Each
axis, of product cost, product time and
product performance, play a significant part
in the success of the project. They are shown
[ 289 ]
Rachel Phillips, Kevin Neailey
and Trevor Broughton
A comparative study of six
stage-gate approaches to
product development
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/5 [1999] 289±297
[ 290 ]
Figure 1
The triple constraint proposed by Rosenau
(1993)
as being mutually exclusive. In reality this is
not the case; each constraint can have a
direct affect on another.
Drivers for product development
process improvement
The quality (product performance) of the
product strongly depends on the quality of
the process (Blessing, 1993), quality being a
critical measure of success. The process itself
is only as effective as the decisions made
within it, and as efficient as the speed with
which the information required for each
decision is made available (Thirupathi and
Roy, 1997). Hence the use of stage-gate
frameworks, which provide a high-level re-
presentation to enforce decisions at review
gates and to break the whole process into
smaller stages of activity, with which to
guide the information-generating activities.
It is also important to consider at this point
that effective product development decisions
are often based on information obtained from
multiple functional areas in the organisation,
making effective communication an impor-
tant part of successful development (Roch-
ford and Rudelius, 1992). Thus concurrent
engineering is also a fundamental concept for
successful product development.
An approach adopted to aid the
product development process
Many organisations understand the impor-
tance of the product development process as
being a key to their success. A stage-gate
representation for product development is a
common tool used within organisations
today to facilitate the process.
Stage-gate development
Stage-gate development is a framework, which
is applied to the company's product develop-
ment process. The framework aids the process
and enables the efficient and effective move-
ment of a new product from idea to launch. It is
essentially an integration of project manage-
ment disciplines and the processes needed to
realise a new product. It is a conceptual model
which more and more organisations are im-
plementing to overcome the problems of
product performance, development cost in-
creases and development time slippage. It is
therefore an aid to keeping the risk associated
with new product development to a minimum.
Risk is a measure of likelihood and conse-
quence of a situation arising, risk will affect
the three measures of product performance,
development time and cost.
A model stage-gate approach
While the details of a particular company
system may vary, a typical model is illu-
strated in Figure 2 (Cooper, 1990). Each stage
of the diagram represents an element of the
product development process, a group of
activities. Each gate represents the review
point for the previous stage, a point where
decisions are made based on the information
generated in the previous group of activities.
The framework allows the organisation to
improve the quality of the output, by focus-
ing on the process itself, in being able to
remove non-value-added activities in the
process and reduce risk associated with the
product's development.
A general description of the generic four-
staged control framework (Cooper, 1990;
Ulrich and Eppinger, 1995; Wheelwright and
Clark, 1992) is given in Table I.
Comparative study of six different
companies
Method of comparison
The four-staged framework was derived from
initial examination of different stage gate
representations used by engineering/manu-
facturing companies. Research has been
carried out as part of an EPSRC-sponsored
project CAPS (Rolls-Royce, 1995). Within this
research project the product development
processes of two Aerospace companies, Rolls-
Royce and Short Brothers were investigated.
In each case, interviews were carried out to
capture and represent the activities of the
product development process in detail. Once
Rachel Phillips, Kevin Neailey
and Trevor Broughton
A comparative study of six
stage-gate approaches to
product development
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/5 [1999] 289±297
Figure 2
The stage gate approach (Cooper, 1990)
the overall processes were gained, additional
example data was collated using LucasVarity
and the PIM (product introduction manage-
ment) process, experience of which had been
gained by one of the authors while in
employment with LucasVarity. The infor-
mation collated was compared to that of
Wheelwright and Clark (1992) on stage-gate
representations of Motorola, General Electric
and Kodak. The different stage-gate repre-
sentations are listed in Table II.
The main objective of this research was to
derive a standard high-level representation
that would act as a generic template for any
product development process. Once the four-
staged framework had been developed, it was
used as a control on which to compare the six
different variations in approach. Each orga-
nisation's stage gate representation was
tabulated using the four-stage control as
shown in Table III.
The table provided a visual comparison of
which companies had a relatively high
number of phases to represent the overall
process and which had a low number. If the
stage gate representation of a company had
more than four phases of development then
the additional phases were listed in the
relevant stage of the process.
Comparisons between the stage-gate
approaches
The number of phases range from four to ten.
Although the number and title of the phases
may vary between the organisations, they all
have the same underlying objective. This is
to provide a means to monitor and execute
projects efficiently and effectively. Figure 3
shows the stage-gate processes model used by
Bombardier.
The approaches used by the different
companies were compared and contrasted
against a four-stage control. Table III shows
that each organisation follows the typical
stages of development. The difference arises
in the number and title of phases into which
each organisation splits their individual
process. The number of formal reviews that
will take place will therefore vary. Table III
shows where these phases fit within the
control stages used. Motorola and Rolls-
Royce all have just four phases of develop-
ment and Lucas has five, although they
employ different titles for each phase,
whereas Kodak, General Electric and Bom-
bardier have six, seven and ten phases. The
process can therefore be classified as high-
phased stage-gate approaches (Kodak, Gen-
eral Electric and Bombardier) or low-phased
stage-gate approaches (Rolls-Royce, Lucas
and Motorola) as shown in Table III.
Examination of the high-phased
organisational approaches
Kodak
Kodak has a product development stage-gate
process consisting of six phases. The addi-
tional reviews are within the first and third
stages of the control stage gate used for
comparison. Kodak's products include mi-
crofilm equipment, copiers, cameras and
medical instruments. The company has ex-
ternal forces of intense international compe-
tition and demanding markets, so it is
necessary for the company to concentrate on
its internal strengths of supplying a product
with unique attributes and characteristics
first before any other competitor. A key
competitive dimension is time to market
with very close customer orientation.
Kodak has therefore placed more emphasis
on the initial stage of development, where all
the customer needs are identified, thus split-
ting the preliminary concept stage into two
phases. This forces the company to review the
progress of the project and ensure that the
objectives are being met. It is vital that they
create a clear customer focus. The validation
stage is also in three phases. Here they are
emphasising at this point that the product fit to
market is critical, as also is the actual
production of that product. It is important for
the organisation to gain additional reviews
throughout this stage, to obtain tighter control.
Although Kodak have six phases, they do
not have an equivalent phase to the fourth
control phase of in-service product support.
Therefore, it could potentially be a seven-
phased stage gate.
As a company, Kodak is functionally orga-
nised, with only cross-functional advisory
groups being used on special issues (e.g.
environmental) (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992).
General Electric
General Electric has a very diverse set of
businesses, manufacturing processes, tech-
nologies and markets. Their product devel-
opment stage-gate process is applicable to
this diverse set of businesses. They have split
the first, second and third stages of the
control stages into three, two and three
phases respectively. Like Kodak they have
placed additional reviews within the initial
stage to keep a clear customer focus. This
forces the organisation to have decision gates
[ 291 ]
Rachel Phillips, Kevin Neailey
and Trevor Broughton
A comparative study of six
stage-gate approaches to
product development
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/5 [1999] 289±297
Table I
Stage and review descriptions for the generic four-stage framework
Stage number and Review gate number
name Stage description and name Review gate description
Stage 1. Preliminary Identification of the need and Gate 1. Preliminary The concept is reviewed in
concept development generation of a concept concept review respect to the mission and
accompanied by a specification capability of the organisation and
and economic justification the orientation of the market
(Wheelwright and Clark, 1992) itself. This is to ensure that the
concept is distinctive and
complementary to the already
existing capabilities of the
organisation
Stage 2. Design and The design phase can be split Gate 2. Design and A decision is made as to whether
development into two sub-phases,varying in development review to progress into detailed design
level of design for manufacture
Initial design phase. A geometric
scheme of the product with a
functional specification of each
major sub-system and some initial
process plans will be developed
Firm-up design phase. A complete
specification of geometry,
materials, process plans and all
unique parts in production will be
produced
Stage 3. Validation Validation is a process of testing Gate 3. Product The final review prior to launch of
the strategies implied in the launch review the product into the market, to
design to reduce risk and ensure that the product is fit for
maximise expected benefit. It purpose
can potentially lead to increased
quality of the product (Cooper,
1994). The initial validation stage
can be early testing of
prototypes, which may be made
up of production ``intent'' parts.
After initial testing there is
further prototype testing, with
supplied parts
Stage 4. In-service When the product is launched, Gate 4. Product Periodic reviews take place
product support manufacturing is ramped up and support review within the service life of the
the product is monitored in product to monitor the product's
service performance

to monitor the product concept development
at this point in the development cycle. They
have an additional phase within the second
control stage in order again to drive the
structured reviews so that the project is
managed from preliminary design into criti-
cal productivity, rather than a natural pro-
gression without structured review. They
also have three phases in the third stage,
again with a customer-based phase prior to
the manufacturing of the product. This
drives the project to address its applicability
to the market prior to full manufacture. It
instills discipline in the project management
techniques.
General Electric are predominately func-
tionally-oriented during the phases of the
[ 292 ]
development process, with the cross-func-
tional issues being raised in the reviews
(Wheelwright and Clark, 1992).
Bombardier (BES model)
Bombardier (BES model) is made up of a
number of organisations, including Short
Brothers, Canadair, Learjet and de Havil-
land. Therefore like General Electric it
operates across a diverse product and busi-
ness range. There are two phases in the
concept development stage and one in design
and development. Bombardier use three
phases for the one validation stage of the
control framework, each additional phase
requires additional structured reviews. A
competitive dimension of Bombardier would
Rachel Phillips, Kevin Neailey
and Trevor Broughton
A comparative study of six
stage-gate approaches to
product development
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/5 [1999] 289±297
Table II
A list of the different stage gate approaches of Motorola, Kodak, General Electric, Lucas
Industries, Rolls-Royce and Bombardier
Company Product development stages
Bombardier Aerospace Group (Short Brothers plc is part Conceptual definition
of this group) (seven phases)a Management review and approval
Preliminary definition
Detail definition
Product definition release
Product certification
Program completion
Kodak (six phases) Customer mission
Technical demonstration
Technical/operational feasibility
Capability demonstration
Product/process design
Acceptance and production
General electric (ten phases)b Customer needs
Concept
Feasibility
Preliminary design
Final design
Critical productivity
Market/field test
Manufacturing feasibility
Market readiness
Market introduction follow-up
Lucas Industries plc (five phases)c Opportunity evaluation
Design and development
Validation
Implementation
Manufacturing support
Rolls-Royce plc (four phases)d Project planning
Full concept definition
Propulsion system realisation
In-service monitoring and technical support
Motorola (four phases) Product definition
Contract development
Development through manufacturing start up
Program wrap-up
Sources:
a
Bombardier Aerospace Engineering Systems (1997)
b
Wheelwright and Clark (1992)
c
Lucas Varity plc (1997)
d
Ruffles (1995)

be to have low development costs with high
value products, hence the additional reviews
during the critical stages of the product
development process of Bombardier Aero-
space businesses.
Short Brothers have additional phases
which fall within the first and third stages of
the control. Information was gathered while
process mapping the product development
process of the nose cowl in Shorts, a sub-
system of the nacelle supplied to Rolls-Royce.
The organisational structure that Short
Brothers had supporting the development
process changed from a functional approach
in the first stage to a cross-functional project
structure in the second and back to a
functional for the third. In the second control
stage, concurrent engineering principles are
aided by computer-aided design and business
process systems (Short Brothers, 1997).
Hence the BES model needs only one phase at
this point in the development process (see
Table III).
Examination of the low-phased
organisational approaches
Lucas, Rolls-Royce and Motorola, all had
similar stage-gate processes to that used as
[ 293 ]
Rachel Phillips, Kevin Neailey
and Trevor Broughton
A comparative study of six
stage-gate approaches to
product development
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/5 [1999] 289±297
the control. Lucas is the only exception with
one more phase in the validation stage. The
variation in approach was in the titles used
by the organisations for each phase. Project
management control is not reduced owing to
the lesser number of phases in a stage. The
organisations place emphasis on these speci-
fic phases, but in all the cases, with closer
examination of their product stage-gate pro-
cesses there are a number of formal reviews
that must take place within a stage. This is
also true with the high-phased stage gate
processes. They too would have additional
reviews within a phase.
Rolls-Royce propose that teamwork predo-
minates within the project orientation of
the product development process (Ruffles,
1995). They also co-locate all their teams to
encourage a pure cross-functional and con-
current engineering environment. Motorolla
also have co-located cross-functional
teams, selected and dedicated to the product
development process (Wheelwright and
Clark, 1992). Lucas actively encourages mu-
tli-disciplinary teams to contribute to all
areas of the project where they have a
relevant contribution to make (Lucas Indus-
tries, 1995).
High- versus low-phased approaches
In the examination so far, what is becoming
evident is that the underlying organisation of
each company plays a significant part in the
type of stage-gate approach that each com-
pany has adopted. The organisations that
have fewer phases to each stage, have cross-
functional teams involved throughout the life
of the project, whereas the high-phased
organisations have a functional orientation
to development, hence the need to enforce
reviews into the overall stage-gate process. A
cross-functional team will have informal and
formal reviews throughout in taking respon-
sibility for the whole project, whereas
responsibility is not generally as clearly
focused in a truly functionally-oriented
environment.
A high-phased approach leads to more than
one formal decision gate being incorporated
within each of the stages of development.
This does not imply that the high-phased
organisations carry out any different activ-
ities to those of Lucas, Rolls-Royce and
Motorola. It does, however, suggest that the
high-phased companies listed are able to
place emphasis in a particular stage, by
separating a stage into more than one phase.
Dividing a stage into more than one phase,

Table III
Table of comparison of the six different stage gate approaches
Organisation
Generic stages Bombardier Kodak General Electric Lucas Industries Rolls-Royce Motorola
Preliminary concept Conceptual design Customer mission Customer needs Opportunity Project planning Product definition
development Management Technical Concept evaluation
review and demonstration Feasibility
approval
Design and Preliminary Technical/ Preliminary design Design and Full concept Contract
development definition operational Critical productivity development definition development
feasibility
Validation Detail definition Capability Market/field test Validation Propulsion system Development
Product definition demonstration Manufacturing Implementation realisation through
release Product/ feasibility Manufacturing manufacturing
Product process design Market readiness start-up
certification Acceptance and
production
In-service product Program No equivalent Market Support In-service Program wrap-up
support completion introduction monitoring and
follow up technical support
Number of phases 7 6 10 5 4 4
High or low phased High High High Low Low Low

Figure 3
Typical stage gate model populated with the overall Bombardier product development process

[ 294 ]
Rachel Phillips, Kevin Neailey
and Trevor Broughton
A comparative study of six
stage-gate approaches to
product development
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/5 [1999] 289±297
allows the placement of the review gates to be
realised. It forces the organisation to review
the progress of a project by committing the
need for these extra review gates within a
stage. As an example, Figure 4 has taken the
Bombardier information once again and
populated a stage-gate approach as viewed
from using the four-stage gate as a control. It
visually shows where the phases fit within a
stage and immediately highlights where
Bombardier have placed emphasis within the
process.
Phased emphasis within a high-phased
approach
The market and industry in which it is
positioned will influence the emphasis that
the organisation places within its product
development process. Therefore the focus of
the organisation's strategy will vary as to the
competitive dimension which is most critical
to its success. If the organisation competes
within a tight customer-oriented market,
where unique product attributes are neces-
sary to survive, then the organisation would
focus the initial stage of the product devel-
opment review to meeting the customer
needs. This requires closer monitoring tech-
niques to allow for the customer needs to be
clearly realised and addressed. The high-
phased organisations that have been exam-
ined in this paper all have more than one
phase within the first stage of the control
stage-gate approach.
Another stage in which the high-phased
organisations listed have more than the one
phase of the control, is the validation stage. It
is within this stage that the company is
Figure 4
Proposed view of the stage gate process using Bombardier's product development process
reviewing that the product is in line with the
market and customer requirements origin-
ally proposed. However, it is by this point
that the majority of the development costs
have been spent and the product costs are
high, yet the emphasis to keep the close
monitoring and control is placed post devel-
opment. As discussed earlier, a competitive
dimension that is as critical as performance
is cost, so the design and development phase
should be a phase to be split into sub-phases.
This will allow a closer monitoring and
control of the progress within this stage of
the development, to ensure that the develop-
ment costs are kept to a minimum.
Stage gate versus company organisation
High-phase frameworks for effective execu-
tion, monitoring and control of a product
development process, generally have a func-
tionally-oriented structure underlying it.
With the implementation of a high-level
phased stage gate, formal reviews are sched-
uled into the process and are forced to take
place. The lower-phased stage-gate compa-
nies, those with four or five phases similar to
the four-staged control used in the table for
comparison, commonly have a cross-func-
tional team underlying their individual
frameworks.
The cross-functional team would be formed
at the beginning of the product development
process, during the identification of the need
for a new product and would follow the
project through to the launch of the product
into the market, a characteristic of concur-
rent engineering methodology. The team
[ 295 ]
Rachel Phillips, Kevin Neailey
and Trevor Broughton
A comparative study of six
stage-gate approaches to
product development
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/5 [1999] 289±297
[ 296 ]
would also take responsibility for the project
as a whole; cost, timings, product perfor-
mance and quality. The use of cross-func-
tional teams leads to empowerment of the
team members to review their progress
internally, formally and informally, allowing
the risk associated with product development
to be kept to a minimum. Hence, monitoring
and control is the responsibility of the team
and the framework does not need to reflect
the need for additional formal reviews. If the
frameworks are broken down to details
within phases, the team reviews would
become evident.
Functionally-oriented organisations do not
have a core team that takes the project
through the whole of the product develop-
ment process. Hence the responsibility falls
to a project manager who co-ordinates the
contributions of all functions. Facilitating
the contributions is a broader management
role than that of a cross-functional project
manager. It would need additional reviews to
pull together the functional departments to
review the project's progress and the pro-
duct's development within the product
development process. The additional reviews
or phases would co-ordinate with the compe-
titive dimensions of the organisation. The
additional reviews also allow the risk asso-
ciated with managing a functional team
when introducing a new product, to be kept
to a minimum.
The organisation should increase the
number of reviews within the first stage of
preliminary concept development, if the
competitive dimension of the company was
customer focus. On the other hand, an
organisation that competes within a high-
cost development industry should increase
the number of phases within the develop-
ment stage, to allow closer monitoring of
progress specifically against this particular
competitive dimension.
Of the six companies examined, Short
Brothers have used both a functional struc-
ture and a cross-functional structure at
various points in the development process.
The functional structure is evident in the
preliminary concept development. In the
design and development stage, Shorts have
adopted some of the concurrent engineering
principles and have implemented technology
to improve this critical stage in the develop-
ment process. Figure 4 highlights this as the
diagram shows that they have just one of
their phases of development within this
stage.
The design and development stage is a key
stage in the overall product development
process, as it is where the majority of
development costs are incurred, where pro-
duct performance can be realised and where
the project timescales can subsequently be
effected. Tight control is therefore vital and
project management needs to be made easy.
On reflection of the organisational struc-
tures, it is evident that at this stage in the
development it is critical to either have a
cross-functional team to manage and review
throughout, or have a number of additional
phases to force the development process to be
reviewed. At all times the project constraints
are closely monitored. However, of the high-
phased companies examined, the additional
phases were not concentrated in this stage of
the process, but were pre- and post-develop-
ment.
Conclusions
All six companies examined closely follow
the principles of the stage-gate approach to
product development. Although varying in
detail, all the processes fit a basic four-stage
process. These stages were preliminary con-
cept development, design and development,
validation and in-service product support.
Companies with a cross-functional team-
based organisation tended to adhere very
closely to these four stages. Companies with a
more functional organisation used more
phases and hence enforced formal reviews
within certain stages. In particular, the first
stage preliminary concept development and
especially the third stage validation were
given most attention. Strict control at all
stages is necessary but concentrating on the
validation stage means that additional mon-
itoring is encouraged post the majority of
development spend. In order to provide a
more rigorous framework for reviewing
product cost and performance then an addi-
tional phase or phases should be incorpo-
rated into the second stage of the process, i.e.
the design and development stage. A reduc-
tion in the number of phases in the third
stage would be possible. This would provide a
more efficient and effective monitoring and
control process overall for a high-phased
approach. Alternatively a multi-team-based
structure could be followed. This approach
would provide the rigour required internally
to manage the product's costs and perfor-
mance and therefore needs fewer gates.
Utilising a generic four-stage representa-
tion, which is applicable to different organi-
sations within various industrial sectors,
provides a high-level architecture which can
act as a standard for organisations to refer-
ence. A standard representation provides an
initial insight into product development,
facilitating business process improvement
Rachel Phillips, Kevin Neailey
and Trevor Broughton
A comparative study of six
stage-gate approaches to
product development
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
10/5 [1999] 289±297
projects. It will also provide a baseline from
which research on understanding the
decomposition of activities supporting, the
product development process can be in-
itiated. The high level standard can be used
as shown in the research as a comparison
tool by which companies can compare their
product development performance and thus
examine their competitive advantage.
References
Blessing, L.T.M. (1993), ``A process-based
approach to computer supported engineering
design'', Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Engineering Design (ICED '93), The
Hague, 17-19 August, pp. 1393-400.
Bombardier Aerospace Engineering Systems.
Part of Bombardier Aerospace Group (1997),
BES Model Documentation.
Cooper, R.G. (1990), ``Stage-gate systems: a new
tool for managing new products'', Business
Horizons, May-June.
Cooper, R.G. (1994), ``New products: the factors
that drive success'', International Marketing
Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 60-76.
Lucas Industries plc. (1995), Product Introduction
Manual, January, No. 2.
LucasVarity plc. (1997), Product Introduction
Manual, Part 1. Mandatory Elements (1), 4
August.
Rochford, L. and Rudelius, W. (1992), ``How
improving more functional areas within a
firm affects the new product process'', Jour-
nal of Product Innovation, Vol. 9, pp. 287-99.
Rolls-Royce plc, Computervision Ltd, Digital
Equipment Co Ltd, University of Leeds, Uni-
versity of Warwick (1995), Control and Access
of Product Data through Product Structures
(CAPS), Proposal to EPSRC under the Inno-
vative Manufacturing Initiative ± Integrated
Aerospace Manufacture. Reference A/01/028,
October.
Rosenau, M.D. (1993), Managing the Development
of New Products, ITP, pp. 39-41.
Ruffles, P.C. (1995), Rolls-Royce Aerospace Group.
Project Derwent ± A New Approach to Product
Definition and Manufacture.
Short Brothers (1997), Product Brochure, October.
Thirupathi, D. and Roy, R. (1997), ``Warwick
Manufacturing Group. Concurrent engineering
in product introduction: some requirements
for information management'', The Proceedings
of the First International Conference:
Managing Enterprises ± Stakeholders, Engi-
neering Logistics & Achievements (ME-
SELA'97), Loughborough University, July,
pp. 561-6.
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (1995), Product
Design and Development, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Wheelwright and Clark (1992), Revolutionizing
Product Development. Quantum Leaps in
Speed, Efficiency, and Quality, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Zirger, B.J. and Maidique, M.A. (1990), ``A model
of new product development: an empirical
test'', Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 7,
July.
[ 297 ]