Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Engineering and

Technology Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jengtecman

A Scrum-based framework for new product development in the

non-software industry
Emilio L. Cano a, c, *, Juan M. García-Camús b, Javier Garzás a, Javier M. Moguerza a,
Noemí N. Sánchez a
a
School of Computer Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University, Móstoles (Madrid), Spain
b
Escuela Superior de Ingeniería y Tecnología, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Madrid, Spain
c
Quantitative Methods and Socio-economic Development Group, Institute for Regional Development (IDR), University of Castilla-La Mancha
(UCLM), Albacete, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Scrum is an iterative and incremental development framework that, nowadays, is mainly used for
Innovation strategy software development. In this work, a Scrum-Based New Product Development (SBNPD) approach
Framework is introduced. This new framework stems from the basis of Scrum and incorporates tools suitable
Agile project management
for being applied to the design and development of physical products. The proposed approach
implies that feedback from early adopters is to be gathered throughout the whole project, thereby
driving to validated learning within a co-creation process. A case study illustrates how the SBNPD
framework is applied for the development of a physical product within the dental industry.

1. Introduction

The product development process typically consists of several activities that firms employ in the complex process of delivering new
products to the market. There is a five-step front-end activity called front-end innovation: opportunity identification, opportunity
analysis, idea genesis, idea selection, and idea and technology development (Koen, 2007). In traditional project management, waterfall
approaches making use of New Product Development (NPD) practices have been well studied for decades in large well-established
companies (Marion et al., 2012). In this context, conventional firms decide, prior to customer feedback, on all issues regarding
design, quality and commercial potential.
However, in addition to plan-driven or waterfall frameworks (NPD process), we have now agile frameworks, and hybrid ones
(combined practices). Moreover, there is a need for more specific models to implement Agile NPD in non-software products, especially
in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) and startups, that deal with limited resources. Under this perspective, flexibility is
crucial, and Agile entities bring flexibility to the process (Conforto and Amaral, 2016). Thus, the main contribution of this work is to
configure an NPD framework for small companies combining NPD processes and tools with agile practices from Scrum, which is in line
with recent hybrid trends (Gemino et al., 2021).
Scrum is one of the so-called ‘agile frameworks,’ whose principles are described in the Manifesto for Agile Software Development
(Beck et al., 2001). It is important to remark that, although currently Scrum is mainly used within the software development sector, it
was originally devised in the mid eighties for NPD, not specifically for software development (Takeuchi and Nonaka, 1986).

* Corresponding author at: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, c/ Tulipán S/N, 28933, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
E-mail address: emilio.lopez@urjc.es (E.L. Cano).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2021.101634
Received 13 July 2017; Received in revised form 4 June 2021; Accepted 10 June 2021
Available online 18 June 2021
0923-4748/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

Although there exist some frameworks that combine NPD methods with agile, e.g., Conforto and Amaral (2016) or Cooper and
Sommer (2018), there are no proposals investigating small high tech companies, and particularly in the materials sectors. In this work,
we propose a framework that has its basis in the principles of Scrum (Schwaber and Sutherland, 2013), but makes use of additional
typical tools from other well-known product development methodologies such as Lean Startup (Ries, 2011). Hence, a new composition
of practices and tools especially suitable for small high tech companies is proposed. The objective of this new proposal is to increase,
with regards to existing methodologies, the engagement of customers in the product development. Hereon, we will refer to our
proposal as Scrum-Based New Product Development (SBNPD) framework.
In our proposal, the typical Scrum framework is adapted and enriched with other tools, constituting these changes and additions
actually a novel framework. For a detailed description of the standard Scrum framework, refer to the Scrum guide (Schwaber and
Sutherland, 2013) or Ken Schwaber (1997).
After a bibliographic review in Section 2, we will describe in detail the SBNPD framework in Section 3, which is illustrated in
Section 4 with a case study. In Section 5, the SBNPD approach has been evaluated through an assessment survey made to a sample of
the participants in the project. Section 6 outlines some conclusions.

2. Bibliographic review

The interest regarding agile methods has increased since the beginning of the current century, see Boehm (2002), Boehm and
Turner (2003a, b). These seminal works clearly differentiate between classical management and agility: Whereas traditional man­
agement focuses on predictive plans, agility is concerned with tacit knowledge, being the latter better adapted to changes and
emerging requirements. The renewed importance of agile methodologies stems from the need of discovering new ways and practices to
implement agile in manufactured goods, hardware products and, in general, non-software products. Thus, we can find in the literature
works that study the combination of classical NPD models with agile methods, see Conforto and Amaral (2016), Cooper (2014),
Karlström and Runeson (2005) and references therein. A motivation to combine both approaches can be consulted in Cooper and
Sommer (2016).
In many industries, agile development is seen as a way to deliver products faster and get the products right in a world with rapid
changing markets and technologies. The research community has documented that agile can accelerate product development and
make products that are more likely to meet customer needs. There exist large companies that are reported to experiment and adopt
agile ways of working in new product development (Cooper and Sommer, 2018). Also, SME’s are recently reported to have success in
adopting agile to develop their physical products (Edwards et al., 2019).
The typical approach (Cooper, 2008) is to integrate iterative development cycles within the well-known Stage-Gate model by
Cooper (2001). This model has been adopted by large companies such as Procter & Gamble, Emerson Electric, ITT and 3M, which have
already used and significantly benefited from this approach (Rijssenbeek, 2015). The Stage-Gate model describes a process for pushing
ideas to market, “a blueprint for managing the new product development process to improve effectiveness and efficiency” (Cooper,
2008). A typical Stage-Gate process contains a set of stages followed each one by a gate. The amount of stages can be adjusted
depending on the importance and length of the project. At the gates a decision is made whether to ‘go’ or ‘kill’ the project resulting in
either a continuance or disruption of funding. However, these gates do not take into account the customer feedback. Decisions are
made following other criteria such as the definition of the data design, the selection of the processes and sequences, prototyping, etc. At
this point, it is important to remark that State Gate is a flexible framework at enterprise level and not a pure project planning approach.
Integrating agile iterations (known as ‘Sprints’ in the Scrum terminology) within the Stage-Gate model leads to a more adaptive and

Table 1
Summary of references in chronological order with practices and tools.
References Practices/Tools

Takeuchi and Nonaka (1986) Scrum for NPD

Schwaber (1997) Scrum for software development
Beck et al. (2001) Agile manifesto
Cooper (2001) Stage-gate model
Boehm (2002) Agile vs. plan-driven approaches
Boehm and Turner (2003a,b) Risk-based agile and plan-driven balanced approach
Karlström and Runeson (2005) Combine Stage-Gate with agile for large software projects
Koen (2007) Five-step fuzzy front-end for innovation
Cooper (2008) Stage-gate evolution: post-launch review, open innovation
Conforto and Amaral (2010) Agile, survey evaluation
Ries (2011) Lean Startup, Minimum Viable Product, Build-Measure-Learn cycle
Marion et al. (2012) Waterfall, cross-functional teams
Schwaber and Sutherland (2013) Scrum guides
Cooper (2014) Beyond Stage-Gate: flexibility, agile accelerated
Rijssenbeek (2015) Lean Startup in traditional settings
Conforto and Amaral (2016) Agile, Stage-Gate, survey evaluation
Cooper and Sommer (2016) Agile-Stage-Gate hybrid, visual project management
Vedsmand et al. (2016) Agile-Scrum for Stage-Gate, faster innovation
Cooper and Sommer (2018) Agile-Stage-Gate hybrids, major firms case studies
Edwards et al. (2019) Agile-Stage-Gate hybrids, SMEs case studies

2
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

agile framework (Vedsmand et al., 2016). In the resulting integrated Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrid model, the built-in agile cycle is
introduced into all or some of the stages. In fact, in Cooper and Sommer (2016), it is recommended to use agility only in the devel­
opment and testing stages. Another combination approach can be consulted in Conforto and Amaral (2010), where an iterative cycle is
proposed, beginning the cycle with a first stage that combines the principles of the Stage-Gate model and project-life cycle man­
agement, and being the stages designed to be iterative, integrated and repeatable as many times as needed during the project life cycle.
The practices and tools used in the aforementioned methodologies and frameworks are summarized in Table 1.
In the following section, it is shown how we integrate different tools in a novel agile framework, leading to a new composition of
practices, which entails a hybrid contribution to product development (see Gemino et al. (2021)). We will describe these tools, focusing
on those that have not been found in the bibliography listed in Table 1.

3. The Scrum-Based New Product Development (SBNPD) approach

In this research, instead of a Stage-Gate-based methodology, we propose a Scrum-based approach. We borrow concepts from other
methodologies and hybridize them with Scrum principles in order to propose a new framework adaptable to the development of
physical products. Instead of introducing agile cycles in the Stage-Gate model, our proposal is made up of pure agile cycles that
incorporate additional tools. The Scrum framework is especially designed in order to improve efficiency for launching a product, while
accomplishing with customer needs (Conforto et al., 2016; Serrador and Pinto, 2015). Therefore, for the development of products with
strong requirements from customers, feedback from a set of early adopters is crucial throughout the whole process, leading to a
co-creation process. In this regard, we integrate in the SBNPD proposal the concept of Minimum Viable Product (MVP), typically used
in Lean Startup (Ries, 2011). We show how every MVP, that is, each potentially releasable product increment, is developed. The final
result is an approach mainly focused in the customer feedback. Feedback about the validity of the MVPs leads to a validated learning
process that allows the fulfillment of customer requirements and even not initially foreseen ones.
A paradigmatic example where the need of a co-creation process is apparent is the case study presented in this work, where small
dental laboratories without expensive equipment need affordable products and processes to compete with large laboratories. The case
study is described in detail and is of special interest as, in addition to the expected initial product, a new unforeseen product arises as a

Fig. 1. SBNPD conceptual model.

3
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

result of the feedback provided by the early adopters.

The conceptual model in Fig. 1 outlines the SBNPD approach. It includes specific Scrum tools, such as the sprints, and non Scrum
ones, such as the MVPs, the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) or the Business Model Canvas (BMC). Roughly speaking, Sprints
correspond to iterations in the progress of the project, being each iteration made up of a Build-Measure-Learn (BML) cycle. These and
the remaining concepts within the conceptual model (Roadmap, Inception, Product Backlog, story, or Sprint Backlog) will be show­
cased in the following sections. In addition, we delve into other elements of the SBNPD framework, describing their main features and
relations with each root methodology.

3.1. Inception

The “inception” is an agile concept, not proper of the Scrum framework. It became popular thanks to the book by Rasmusson
(2010). It consists of a meeting where all stakeholders are suggested to answer ten questions whose responses help them to contex­
tualize the project together. This assures that all stakeholders are on the same page so that collective expectations are gathered. We
have chosen this particular type of initial stage as it allows in a very automatized and quick manner to provide a common view of the
background, circumstances and scope of the project. At this stage, the different ideas and visions on how the project should successfully
end are shared by all stakeholders. It is important to ensure that the common goals established in this phase are assumed, avoiding
wrong future interpretations. During the inception, two standard industrial tools can be used, the Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
and the Business Model Canvas (BMC). According to ISO 16355-1, the “integration of QFD core elements is both desirable and possible
into other new product development processes.” Another palpable reason to use the BMC and the QFD is that industrial stakeholders
are used to them and therefore introducing these concepts will usually be straightforward. These two tools will be used as a basis to
build the Scrum artifact known as Product Backlog. We describe next the three elements, namely, QFD, BMC, and Product Backlog.

3.1.1. Quality Function Deployment

QFD is well known in world-class quality methodologies such as Six Sigma, see Cano et al. (2012) and references therein. The QFD
is used to define the so-called customer’s voice (Akao, 2004). QFD is a method to assure customer or stakeholder satisfaction and value
with new and existing products. The general principle and perspective of the QFD method can be found in part 1 of the ISO 16355
Standard (Application of statistical and related methods to New technology and Product Development Process). In this ISO standard, it
is even stated that QFD supports other product development methods, such as Stage-Gate. Likewise, it is also a booster for the new
SBNPD framework proposed in this paper. A thorough review of QFD is out of the scope of this paper. Details and examples of typical
tools for QFD can be consulted in ISO TC69/SC8 (2015). One of these tools is used in the case study showcased in Section 4, in
particular the so-called “house of quality.” According to part 5 of ISO 16355 (Solution Strategy), the house of quality consists of a
matrix (known as L-matrix) with customer needs as rows and functional requirements as columns. Inside the L-matrix, the
cause-and-effect relationship between rows and columns is represented, typically by symbols representing the strength of the rela­
tionship, e.g., weak, moderate, strong. This allows to “assure that upstream priorities and targets are deployed downstream into so­
lution priorities and targets” (ISO TC69/SC8, 2017). With the QFD the relations between the customer requirements for the product
and the technical requirements of the project are mapped.

3.1.2. Business Model Canvas

The answers to the ten inception questions together with the QFD lead to the construction of a BMC (Osterwalder et al., 2004). This
tool is usually related to Lean Startup methodologies (Ries, 2011), and does not properly belong to the typical Scrum framework. The
BMC is the first snapshot of the business model, that can evolve throughout the project iterations up to the final business model. It
allows to identify the customer needs matching value propositions and customer segments. This artifact is a visual chart with elements
describing a firm’s or product’s value proposition, infrastructure, customers, and finances. As a strategic management template for
developing new business models, it is appropriate for NPD in an industrial context (Osterwalder et al., 2004). As a result of the BMC, an
initial working hypothesis is formulated and provisionally assumed as a basis for the development of the product.

3.1.3. Product backlog and user stories

The “Product Backlog” is a typical Scrum artifact, and consists of an ordered and prioritized list including all the specifications of
the product, being the “user stories” its most prominent elements. A central part that makes SBNPD a versatile planning tool, is the
dynamics of the Product Backlog, going from vision to tasks, through epics and stories. In Agile frameworks, the description of the
needs of customers and users is performed from user stories. Each story includes a short description of the product functionality as
perceived by the user. Thus, when the user stories are being developed, these requirements must be considered, and the acceptance
tests associated to the fulfillment of the requirements should be described. In a summarized manner, the format of each user stories is:
“As [role] I want [objective], so that [benefit].” The granularity of the user stories will facilitate the definition of future tasks. Details
for user stories, backlog, and other Scrum artifacts can be consulted in Leffingwell (2010) and Leffingwell (2018).
Within the SBNPD approach, the BMC constitutes a bridge that leads to the user stories, that is, it is a link between the product to
develop and the interest of customers in acquiring it, and collects all the specifications and requirements of the product provided by the
stakeholders. Therefore, the user stories arise in a natural way. In the SBNPD framework, the user stories are a granular dissection of
the details and needs collected in the BMC. If necessary, the QFD can be also consulted. Notice that depending of the nature of the
project at hand, the way to build the Product Backlog may imply using either the BMC or both, the QFD and the BMC. Since these are
two well-known tools in the industry, building the Product Backlog lying on the BMC and the QFD is simpler and more effective than

4
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

going for it without these preliminar conceptualizations of the product. It is important to remark that the initial working hypothesis
formulated as a result of the BMC is now embedded into the corresponding user stories. The user stories in the Product Backlog are
organized using the MoSCoW method (Popli et al., 2014). This technique is used to classify and prioritize the users needs. These needs
are divided into four categories, labeled as: (i) MUST (must have, referred by the capital letter ‘M’); (ii) SHOULD (should have, ‘S’); iii)
COULD (could have, ‘C’); and (iv) WON’T (would like but won’t get, ‘W’). This procedure is one out of many methods for estimating
backlog items (Epics and User Stories). There are more advanced techniques such as Weighted-Shorted-Job-First (WSJF), based on the
theory of Cost-of-Delay in Product Development (Reinertsen, 2009) and widely used in software and hardware companies. In Conforto
and Amaral (2016) some difficulties are found in the use of visual boards to plan and control activities. Instead, we recommend using
agile planning tools such as Trello. For SMEs, this is a low-cost and easy to access collaboration tool. In larger and more agile expe­
rienced enterprises, there are dedicated and more advanced tools such as Jira and Azure offering more agile features than Trello. These
digital ubiquitous tools allow permanent access to the visual state of the project and, as a consequence, facilitate the involvement of all
stakeholders in the design and layout of the planning and control activities, as suggested in Conforto and Amaral (2016).

3.2. Roadmap and minimum viable products

In the first stages of the project, a high level strategic vision is needed. To this aim, the artifact known as “Roadmap” is used to
outline the high-level plan describing how the product will evolve in the future. The roadmap must be adjusted as needed during the
project execution. It is a typical tool within Agile contexts. Note that roadmapping is a huge research area, see for example Kerr et al.
(2019). However, the scope of the roadmap in our proposal is the Lean Startup “product roadmap” approach. Thus, the roadmap
reflects the set of Minimum Viable Products (MVP) that will be likely launched. Eventually, the final number of MVPs will depend on
the difficulties that may arise throughout the project progress. A MVP is a partial version of a new product that allows, with the
minimum effort, the collection of the maximum amount of learning validated by stakeholders. It is oriented to learn quickly what the
customer wants, decreasing costs and risks in case of a failed product. MVPs are used to validate their effect on customers. In fact,
validated learning, explained in detail below, is inherent to the MVP concept. Within the SBNPD approach, every MVP is released to the
early adopters, as transparency is crucial within any co-creation process, especially when physical products are being developed,
where the costs of readaptation may dramatically increase due to machinery, materials, facilities, etc. The main reason for that is that
the early adopters are always informed about the progress of the product development. The MVP is a concept widely used in the Lean
Startup methodology (Ries, 2011) and differs from the typical Scrum artifact known as “Increment.” Roughly speaking, according to
the Scrum guide (Schwaber and Sutherland, 2013), an increment is the sum of all the Product Backlog items completed at a given point
of the process. It must be in usable condition regardless of whether it is released or not to the customer. Other stand-alone methods
could also be incorporated in the framework. For example, Product Vision can be used in an agile context as suggested by Pichler
(2016).

3.3. Sprints

The basic element and event of the SBNPD framework is the “Sprint.” Sprints are in the core of the Scrum methodology. Within
Scrum, Sprints finish with an increment, whereas SBNPD Sprints finish with a MVP. A Sprint is equivalent to an iteration in the progress
of the process at hand. Sprints always have the same duration, leading to regularity in the work of the team and, therefore, establishing
a rhythm.
The Sprint Goal and the Sprint Backlog prompt a Sprint, that consists of the following elements: Sprint Planning, Daily Scrums, the
development work, the Sprint Review, and the Sprint Retrospective. We will briefly describe all these Scrum elements as they are
implemented in the SBNPD framework. For an in-depth explanation, see the Scrum Guide (Schwaber and Sutherland, 2013).

Fig. 2. Build-Measure-Learn cycle.

5
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

During the Sprint Planning, the Scrum Team plans the work to be done during the Sprint. The Sprint Planning is a “Scrum event”
that should be short, e.g., eight hours for a one-month Sprint. This plan establishes a Sprint Goal that may be achieved through the
Product Backlog. Thus, the Sprint Backlog is a subset of user stories from the Product Backlog, plus a plan for delivering a MVP. In the
Sprint Planning, the roles involved are the “Product Owner” (responsible of prioritizing the Product Backlog and connecting the
development team with the customers/users, i.e., the stakeholders), the “Scrum Master” (person ensuring that the project participants
follow the agile rules, values and principles, and guiding the collaboration between the team and with the customer) and the
Development Team. As a result the development team makes a planning of the work that will be completed during the Sprint. Once the
development team has defined the tasks of the Sprint Backlog, they will define the objective of the Sprint, allowing all team members to
have a common goal.
Daily Scrums are events with a maximum duration of 15 minutes involving the development team and the Scrum Master. During
the meeting, they discuss about the work made the day before, the problems found, and what they will do during the current day. For
the development of physical products we recommend the use of the Lean Startup cycle Build-Measure-Learn (BML cycle), see Ries
(2011). The simplicity of this cycle, represented in Fig. 2, allows assessing as soon as possible the needs of the customers. Under the
SBNPD approach, within each Sprint, a complete cycle is performed. We describe next how the BML cycle fits in a Sprint. The build step
corresponds to the Scrum development work, which leads to an MVP. The specific tasks for building such MVP depend on the problem
at hand. A complete example will be showcased in the Case Study section.
A Sprint Review meeting is performed at the end of the Sprint. These meetings are a focal point for feedback to the team and
potentially the major co-creating event. The participants are the development Team, the Scrum Master and the Product Owner. During
this meeting the team members and the Product Owner indicate the completed and uncompleted tasks, presenting the work done to the
stakeholders and customers. The Product Owner, given the stakeholders feedback, verifies the improvement in the output of the work
and provides information needed to update the Product Backlog with new user stories. The Scrum review event should not last more
than four hours. This Sprint Review includes the Measure step of the BML cycle, including actionable metrics. The Sprint Review paves
the way for the Learn step of the BML cycle.
The event after the Sprint Review is the Sprint Retrospective, in which the Learn step of the BML cycle is completed. This event
takes place between the Sprint Review and the next Sprint Planning. The typical duration is three hours for a one-month sprint. The
participants are the members of the Scrum team and the Scrum Master. In this meeting they share impressions on the Sprint just ended.
This discussion may be used to improve the product through the validated learning stemmed from the co-creation process via MVPs.
Notice that the BML cycle included in the SBNPD Sprints entails the so-called “validated learning” process, i.e., trying out an initial idea
and then measuring its fulfillment of the customer needs in order to validate its effect. Knowledge obtained from the product ?and
customer feedback and testing- is identified, and the roadmap is revised and adjusted, if needed. It is important to remark that in the
SBNPD framework, validated learning is made on the Sprint Backlog user stories, whose granularity allows a more agile validated
learning process.

4. Case study

In this section we describe a project where the SBNPD framework has been applied. It is important to remark that in terms of the risk
model to balance agile and plan-driven methods, see Boehm and Turner (2003b), this case study falls into the boundaries of agile
methods. For the sake of space, we summarize the main results. Due to confidentiality considerations, data have been masked and
generic magnitudes similar to the real ones have been used.
The SBNPD framework is applied for the development of a Chrome-Cobalt (Cr-Co) disc for Computer-Aided Design and Computer-
Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) dentistry use (Li et al., 2015). This sector is mainly made of SMEs subject to important technological
changes, and therefore co-creation is a very valuable way to reach the market in a quick and efficient manner. Roughly speaking,
CAD/CAM technologies are used to turn discs of a given material into dental and orthodontic prostheses (Beuer et al., 2008, 2015;
Miyazaki et al., 2009). Nowadays, the discs used in the CAD/CAM dentistry sector are sold by the CAD/CAM machinery manufacturers.
One of the main drawbacks of the current technology used in CAD/CAM dental laboratories for the development of Cr-Co discs comes
from the fact that the discs used in the process have been subjected to a sintering process and, as a consequence, they are very hard and
the process of cutting the discs can only be afforded using powerful CAD/CAM technologies. This advanced CAD/CAM dental tech­
nology is nowadays still expensive as both, the machinery and the discs, are just affordable for large dental laboratories, i.e., those with
strong economical resources (Large Enterprises). However, most dental labs are Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), formed by few
people, and have no capacity to acquire powerful CAD/CAM machinery. This being so, if softer discs could be developed, then the
cutting process would be cheaper, as less expensive desktop CAD/CAM machines would work. To overcome this drawback we describe
how a softer Cr-Co disc suitable for the different segments of customers of dental laboratories has been developed, in order to make
possible its use by a wider range of dental laboratories irrespective their size, as they could afford the cost of the tools and the discs.
This solution contributed to reduce conflicts between team members and stakeholders. In this regard, the SBNPD approach has been
critical, as it is flexible enough to allow the addition of a new sprint aimed at developing a new product that fulfills the expectations of
every involved stakeholder. Questions related to resolution of conflicts and flexibility were included in a survey to asses the SBNPD
model, the results of which are detailed in Section 5. In particular, the use of QFD and BMC was highly ranked for their contribution to
the design of the user stories and to the goals of the project. Moreover, the co-creation process was also acknowledged as key for
achieving better results of the project.
Due to the type of companies in the sector (milling laboratories, dental prosthetics, etc.) and because these stakeholders will act as
early adopters, the following companies and personnel have participated in the project:

6
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634
Fig. 3. Outline of the QFD in the case study.
7
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

• One provider company. This is the leading company of the project. In fact, the development team is allocated in this organization.
In particular it is made up of a Product Owner (director of the company), a Scrum Master and a development team constituted by
two additional technicians. The Scrum Master also participates in the development tasks. All the members of this team have a
complete knowledge of the SBNPD framework and have been trained in advance.
• Two large laboratories (early adopters). The contact person with the large laboratories is a senior management charge with
technical knowledge and decision-making capacity. In addition, the companies may involve some employees in the project who
depend on the senior management person, being this an internal question of each early adopter. For these participants, no thorough
knowledge of the SBNPD approach is required, just some general concepts.
• Six small laboratories (early adopters, usually with less than 10 employees). Again the contact is carried out through a senior
management person with technical knowledge, in many cases, the founders of these small companies. Each small laboratory has
involved internally at least two additional employees. These participants do not have a deep knowledge of the framework.

Following the SBNPD approach, we begin the development of our Cr-Co disc with an “inception.” The inception starts with the the
QFD. The result for the case at hand is shown in Fig. 3. Each row corresponds to a client’s requirement. These requirements (the whats)
are intended to investigate what the client demands in the product that the company is offering. Five customer requirements are
detected and ranked, namely: hardness, ease of machining, behaviour when sintering, versatility, furnace use. In addition, each
column represents a technical requirement. These requirements (the hows) establish the characteristics of the offered product are
established that contribute to satisfying the customer’s requirements. Ten technical requirements are found, namely: disc dimensions,
temperature of furnace during sintering, composition of discs, machining, sintering furnace time, pre-sintering temperature, ceramics
type, furnace gases, pressure, and obtaining the EC certificate. The number of stars (*) represents the importance of the interactions
between customer and technical requirements. Thus, from the QFD, it is concluded that the most important requirements are hardness
of the disc, machining of the disc, behavior when sintering, and obtaining the EC certificate. Moreover, through the QFD it is verified
that our product (solid line in the graphs) will fulfill similar characteristics to those of the main competitor products (dashed line in the
graphs).
The inception continues with the BMC, where the customer segment is identified. At this point, the set of early adopters is selected,
that is, the two large laboratories and the six small laboratories of prosthetic dentistry. These customers have been chosen to interact
with the team, that is, they will receive the MVPs, and provide feedback and validated learning in the sprint review meetings. Thus, as a
result of the inception, from the QFD and the BMC, the following initial hypothesis is formulated: “it is necessary for the dental sector a
new product of easier machining in order to save time and power in the treatment of the dental CAD/CAM discs and in this way the use
of smaller CAD/CAM machines.” This hypothesis is translated into the corresponding user stories (see Table 2), conforming the Product
Backlog. Table 2 shows the Product Backlog with the MoSCoW classification in the second column. The user stories have been sorted
according to their value, whereas the identificators (ID) keep their original appearance number. At this stage, according to the
stakeholders feedback, the assessment survey for the evaluation of the framework is designed by adapting the questions in Conforto
and Amaral (2016).
The current project is not expected to last more than four months. Developing a MVP (sintered disc) requires one week due to
pressing processes and technical constraints. Early adopters need one week for testing. Finally, another week is needed for data
analysis and to discuss and obtain the validated learning. As a consequence, the Sprints length is fixed to 21 days. The initial foreseen
sprints were three, namely: (S1) Developing a first MVP; (S2) A second MVP; (S3) Solving Cr-Co dust pollution. However, five Sprints
were finally needed, due to the adjustments made in the Roadmap during the project evolvement. For the sake of space, we will
describe in detail the first sprint, whereas for the remaining sprints a summary of the main findings will be showcased. Using the agile
planning tool Trello, an initial visual state of the project is showcased. Fig. 4 shows an example of the visual appearance of the
planning. This initial planning will evolve throughout the project and all stakeholders will be able to consult it at any time during the
project execution.
In the first Sprint, an initial Cr-Co disc sample is developed (first MVP). The user stories selected from the Product Backlog to
conform the Sprint 1 Backlog are those with IDs 1 to 4. The functional prototype developed (“Build” step of the BML cycle) has a
density of 6.50 g/cm3 and a hardness of 70.12 MPa, being this density and hardness lower than the ones of commercial discs provided

Table 2
Product Backlog.
ID Value Title Description

4 M Solving pollution As Scrum team we want to avoid any pollution in the process so that solving the problem is economically affordable.
6 M CE Standard As dental CAD/CAM disc manufacturers we want to acquire the CE standard so that products can be legally
commercialized.
2 S Disc for dental As dental CAD/CAM disc manufacturers we want early adopters to test discs so that the product will be acceptable for
laboratories the market.
3 S Pollution avoidance As early adopters we want to avoid any pollution in the process so that CAD-CAM machining keeps working after using
discs.
1 C Benefits of the new As early adopters we want to work with a softer CAD/CAM disc so that machining will be efficient regarding time and
product energy.
5 C Disc/process protection As dental CAD/CAM disc manufacturers we want to intellectually protect the disc and the process so that the best
(IP) protection-economy ratio occurs.

8
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

Fig. 4. Example of visual management under the SBNPD approach.

by CAD/CAM suppliers, which amounts 8.58 g/cm3 and 145 MPa respectively (user stories 1 and 2). No pollution problems were
reported (user stories 3 and 4). With these results the “Measure” step of the BML cycle is completed. Small dental laboratories found the
disc still too hard for handing. However, as it is a sintered disc, large dental laboratories found it adequate, but still with a fragile
behavior for commercial use. According to the customer feedback and specifications and standards shown by the analyses, during the
Sprint Review it is detected that the needs of the large laboratories sector are different from the needs of small laboratories. Large
laboratories need a harder prototype, whereas small laboratories need a softer prototype (“Learn” step of the BML cycle). Within the
Sprint review takes place the most relevant part of the co-creation process done with the customers, as it is crucial the participation and
feedback provided in this meeting by the early adopters, that is, the users of the product. As a consequence, the “Learn” step actually
concludes each co-creation cycle. So, the roadmap is adjusted during the Retrospective meeting. As a result of the validated learning, it
is decided to develop two products: One for each segment of laboratories, and therefore, a dual business model is proposed. Since the
MVP developed almost fulfills the requirements of large laboratories, it is agreed to first develop in the following Sprint a sintered disc
for this segment. The new roadmap has now four Sprints, still within the total project duration, namely: (S1) Developing a first MVP;
(S2) Sintered MVP; (S3) Disc for small laboratories; (S4) Solving Cr-Co dust pollution. Notice that the last Sprint is kept since the disc
for small laboratories may probably suffer of the pollution process. This functional prototype will be given to the two large dental
laboratories to obtain validated learning.
In the second Sprint, an improved MVP is developed, in order to fulfill the requirements of the large laboratories segment. The user
stories selected from the Product Backlog to conform the Sprint Backlog are those with with Ids 1, 2, 5, and 6. The result is a disc with a
density of 8.18 g/cm3 and 102.73 MPa, being these density and hardness values still lower than the ones of commercial discs provided
by CAD/CAM suppliers. As a consequence, the disc is harder than the first MVP and still softer than commercial discs provided by CAD/
CAM suppliers, fulfilling story 1 and the requirement of hardness stated by large laboratories. The feedback from the large laboratories
segment is positive: both laboratories assess the acceptance of this new sintered disc and express their interest on the product, given its
viability in terms of cost-benefit, return of investment, energy savings and reduced time in the manufacturing and machining processes
(story 2). So, this is the product to be launched for large laboratories. Regarding user Stories 5 and 6, given its proximity to a final
product, intellectual property protection and the CE marking standard accreditation procedures are initiated for the sintered disc. In
Fig. 5, a sintered MVP after its machining by a large laboratory is shown.
In the third Sprint, the team proceeds to find out the composition and specifications of a product for the other segment of early

Fig. 5. Sintered MVP ‘put in mouth’ after machining.

9
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

adopters: small prosthesis laboratories. We will refer to the product for small laboratories as the “non-sintered disc.” The user stories
selected from the Product Backlog to conform the Sprint 3 Backlog are those with Ids 1 to 4. A MVP consisting of disc with a density of
5.39 g/cm3 and a hardness of 58.63 MPa. The non-sintered disc is developed in “cold,” that is, under a lower temperature and without a
sintering process. In this way, it will be clearly softer than sintered discs and, therefore, easy to cut and shape with small desktop CAD/
CAM machines, saving time and energy. To dispose of compaction and final curing, a posterior inexpensive sintering on the mecha­
nized disc is to be performed, using the conventional ovens already available in small laboratories for the processing of other materials
(user stories 1 and 2). Regarding user stories 3 and 4, early adopters will be consulted, as contamination of CAD/CAM machines may
occur when non-sintered products are being cut. The feedback from the six small laboratories is collected. Regarding user stories 1 and
2, the six laboratories agreed that this MVP has the correct hardness for their small desktop CAD/CAM machines. However, with
regards to user stories 3, 4, most laboratories reported that the Cr-Co dust contaminates the CAD/CAM machines, being the decon­
tamination process uncomfortable and time consuming. In addition, a new problem is observed: conventional ovens do not work with
inert atmospheres and therefore oxidation processes on the disc take place during sintering. The roadmap is updated with a fifth Sprint,
still within the total project duration, namely: (S1) Developing a first MVP; (S2) Sintered MVP; (S3) Disc for small laboratories; (S4)
Solving Cr-Co dust pollution; (S5) Solving Oxidation during Sintering. Two new User Stories are incorporated to the Product Backlog
(see Table 3).
In the fourth Sprint, the team proceeds to find out how to improve the MVP developed in Sprint 3, in order to solve the problem
related to the contamination of CAD/CAM machines produced by Cr-Co dust. The user stories selected from the Product Backlog to
conform the Sprint 4 Backlog are those with Ids 3 and 4. Some tests are made trying to slightly increase the hardness of the non-sintered
disc in order to avoid Cr-Co dust contaminating the CAD/CAM machine for subsequent machining processes, without going through a
sintering process. However, either the prototypes exceeded the maximum hardness acceptable for small desktop CAD/CAM machines
or where too soft to avoid dust pollution. At this dead end point, the MVP consists of a set of discs with different hardness levels in order
to obtain feedback from the early adopters. The contamination problem is communicated to the early adopters jointly with the MVP
delivery. The feedback provided by early adopters is still positive as they inform that, since Cr-Co is a very usual material, the
acquisition of a specific desktop CAD/CAM machine that would be used only for cutting Cr-Co parts is justified. Thus, to fulfil user
stories 3 and 4, the final agreed decision consists of the non-sintered disc plus machinery equipment specifications and instructions.
Although the solution may seem drastic, it has been agreed jointly with all early adopters, as investment on small machines has not a
high cost and, according to their experience, the dental sector market trend is, due to implantology, to increasingly use Cr-Co replacing
other materials (Choi et al., 2014). Given this tendency, according to early adopters, this solution will also improve their production
management system avoiding, for instance, the opposite situation in which Cr-Co discs may be contaminated by other materials. In
fact, given the low cost of small desktop CAD/CAM machines, disc suppliers may even offer a new machine to clients when signing long
term supply contracts. Fig. 6 shows the non-sintered delivered to early adopters.
Finally, in the fifth Sprint, the team proceeds to find out how to improve the MVP developed in Sprint 4, in order to overcome the
oxidation of the discs when conventional ovens with non-inert atmospheres are used for the sintering process. The user stories selected
from the Product Backlog to conform the Sprint 5 Backlog are those with Ids 5 to 8. As already mentioned, the non-sintered disc, once
mechanized, must be sintered to achieve compaction and final curing. Sintering is usually done in conventional ovens without an inert
atmosphere and therefore unwanted oxidation reactions tend to occur. A first possibility to solve the problem would be the acquisition
by the customer of furnace with an inert atmosphere. However, this possibility is discarded given the high cost of this kind of pro­
fessional furnaces. In order to fulfil stories 7 and 8, the chosen option is to design a low cost graphite crucible (roughly speaking, a
closed muffle box) where the mechanized disc must be introduced. Then, the crucible with the dental part inside is put in the con­
ventional oven for the sintering process. In this way, protected by the crucible, the dental pieces do not suffer unwanted oxidation
processes. Thus, the fifth MVP will be made up by the non-sintered disc plus machinery equipment specifications and instructions
jointly with the crucible for sintering. We will refer to this MVP as the “Green Disc.” The feedback from the small laboratories segment
is positive: all the laboratories assess the effectiveness of the crucible avoiding oxidation processes and report their interest on the
product. Concerning user stories 5 and 6, intellectual property protection and the CE marking standard accreditation procedures are
initiated for the Green Disc. Currently, the developed graphite crucible is protected by utility model number U201500275 (García-­
Camús and Viñas, 2015). Fig. 7 shows the developed graphite crucible with some dental parts inside.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Method evaluation

In order to evaluate the SBNPD framework, a questionnaire with 26 questions was presented to 24 participants (Product Owner and
Scrum Master from the provider company, management person and one employee from each large laboratory, and management person

Table 3
New user stories.
ID Value Title Description

8 M Solving oxidation during As Scrum team we want to avoid oxidation in sintering so that solving the problem is economically affordable.
sintering
7 S Oxidation during sintering As early adopters we want to avoid oxidation during sintering so that discs are usable.

10
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

Fig. 6. Non-sintered disc MVP.

Fig. 7. Graphite crucible for sintering.

and two employees per small laboratory) involved in the project described in the case study, see Table 4. Following Conforto and
Amaral (2016), the closed questionnaire was combined with informal individual interviews with the participants after its completion.
Answers are based on a 5-point Likert scale (totally disagree = 1; disagree = 2; indifferent = 3; agree = 4; totally agree = 5). The
questionnaire is based on the works by Conforto and Amaral (2010, 2016). Questions can be consulted in Table 5. The questionnaire
evaluates seven dimensions, namely: (1) self-discipline and self-management (questions Q1 to Q3); (2) simplicity (Q4 to Q7); (3)
flexibility (Q8 and Q9); (4) visual communication (Q10 and Q11); (5) relations among stakeholders (Q12 to Q15); (6) added value
(Q16 to Q21); and (7) innovation and creativity (Q22 to Q26). Following Conforto and Amaral (2016), the first four dimensions

Table 4
Interviews by stakeholder.
Stakeholder N◦ companies N◦ interviews Total people interviewed

Provider 1 2 2
Large laboratory 2 2 4
Small laboratory 6 3 18
Total 9 7 24

11
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

correspond to the principles of Agile Project Management.

5.2. Results

In Table 5 a summary of the results is shown, including for each question the mean, median, and standard deviation of the answers,
as well as the number of participants agreeing with each question (4 or 5 in the questionnaire Likert scale) out of the 24 participants.
Concerning the internal consistency of the questionnaire, the Cronbach-α coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) amounts to 0.81. By
convention, values of the Cronbach-α measure over 0.8 are considered enough to guarantee the validity of the scale (Gliem and Gliem,
2003). Next, we analyze the results with regards to the seven dimensions previously described. Regarding self-discipline and
self-management, questions Q1 to Q3, the overall average for this dimension is 4.63, with low standard deviations for the three
questions. At least 23 out of 24 respondents answered positively to each of those questions. The results agree with those in Conforto
and Amaral (2010, 2016). With respect to simplicity (Q4 to Q7), the overall average for this dimension, in which at least 17 out of 24
people agreed, is 4.11. In this case, the variability is larger than that obtained for the first dimension. Again results agree with those in
Conforto and Amaral (2010, 2016). With regards to flexibility (Q8 and Q9), the SBNPD framework is clearly perceived as very flexible.
In fact, 18 participants strongly agreed with Q8. The SBNPD framework is made up of pure agile cycles, which make its application
especially flexible. In fact, one of the small laboratories participants enhanced the flexibility of the approach as “it allowed the
development of the Green Disc in an ‘in itinere’ manner, taking advantage of the current development of the project, without going
again through the strict stages of other [plan-driven] approaches.” Concerning visual communication (Q10 and Q11), the fourth agile
dimension, the overall average is 4.17. In this regard, an improvement regarding Conforto and Amaral (2016) is observed. In fact, the
use of agile planning tools such as Trello, instead of the typical board with cards, is positively perceived by the participants, as it
facilitates to all stakeholders permanent access to the visual state of the project. A CEO of a large laboratory commented that “the use of
this tool was especially useful when coming back to the project after some days working on another project.” This is typical in large
enterprises, where workers are usually involved simultaneously in a variety of different projects. Another participant of a small
laboratory commented that “this tool has allowed the centralization of information, avoiding the dissemination of crucial informa­
tion.” Regarding relations among stakeholders (Q12 to Q15), it is important to differentiate relations involving team members with
external participants (Q12, Q13 and Q14) and internal relations among team members (Q15). The average to questions evaluating the
effect of the SBNPD approach on the relations between team members and project participants is over 4.31, being the average cor­
responding to Q12, creation of a participative decision process among early adopters and project team, the highest among all answers
to the questionnaire with one of the lowest standard deviations. With respect to Q15, reduction of conflicts among team members, the
average result is coherent with that in Conforto and Amaral (2016), being this the lowest average among all answers to the ques­
tionnaire. In addition, the standard deviation is the highest among all answers. This patterns occurs also in the questionnaire in
Conforto and Amaral (2016). Concerning the added value dimension (Q16 to Q21), it is important to remark that Q20 answers show

Table 5
SBNPD evaluation survey questions and results.
Id Question Mean Median Std. Agree
Dev.

Q1 SBNPD requires a team’s self-discipline and self-management 4.58 5.0 0.58 23

Q2 SBNPD creates a project environment that promotes development of self-organized and self-disciplined teams 4.63 5.0 0.58 23
Q3 Self-discipline and self-management contributes to better project team performance and development 4.67 5.0 0.48 24
Q4 SBNPD is simple to use and easily adapted (simplicity) 4.04 4.0 1.08 18
Q5 SBNPD contributes to making project planning activities agile and simple 4.25 4.0 0.79 19
Q6 SBNPD contributes to simplifying the project progress monitoring 4.13 4.0 0.95 17
Q7 SBNPD contributes to speeding up and simplifying the project’s information retrieval 4.04 4.0 0.91 19
Q8 SBNPD is flexible enough to absorb project changes (flexibility) 4.75 5.0 0.44 24
Q9 SBNPD contributes to speeding up replanning project activities 4.63 5.0 0.71 21
Q10 SBNPD promotes visual communication and team view 4.08 4.0 0.88 18
Q11 The use of agile planning tools (such as Trello) contribute visually to project management and progress 4.25 4.0 0.79 19
monitoring
Q12 SBNPD contributes to creating a participative decision process among early adopters and project team 4.83 5.0 0.48 23
Q13 SBNPD contributes to improving communication with customers 4.33 5.0 1.01 21
Q14 SBNPD contributes to reducing conflicts among early adopters and project team 4.58 5.0 0.78 22
Q15 SBNPD contributes to reducing conflicts among team members 3.50 4.0 1.47 15
Q16 SBNPD contributes to delivering value to the team and customers 4.46 5.0 0.78 20
Q17 SBNPD contributes to enhancing the leadership aspects of project team members 4.54 5.0 0.78 20
Q18 SBNPD contributes to enhancing the project team members’ commitment to results 4.63 5.0 0.58 23
Q19 SBNPD Contributes to improving project results (time, cost, quality) 4.29 5.0 1.00 19
Q20 SBNPD requires low investment in resources and tools 4.21 5.0 1.25 19
Q21 SBNPD improves the project’s information accuracy 4.42 5.0 0.72 21
Q22 SBNPD encourages project innovation and creativity 4.21 4.0 0.78 21
Q23 SBNPD contributes to creating a standard NPD process, including terminology and guidelines 4.17 4.5 1.01 18
Q24 Use of QFD and BMC contributes to the design of the user stories and establish the common goals of the project 4.83 5.0 0.38 24
Q25 Co-creation contributes to better project results 4.83 5.0 0.48 23
Q26 SBNPD promotes a co-creation process among stakeholders 4.79 5.0 0.51 23

12
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

that the SBNPD framework seems to require low investment in resources and tools. In this regard, a CEO of a large laboratory com­
mented that “the simplicity of the methodology implies that it can be implemented with a very small investment, even for personnel
training.”
Finally, with respect to innovation and creativity (Q22 to Q26), it is especially relevant the result for questions related to co-
creation. Participants are majoritarily of the opinion that co-creation contributes to better project results (average of 4.83 for an­
swers to Q25), and the promotion of a co-creation process among stakeholders is perceived by the respondents (average of 4.79 to
Q26). In this regard, a small participant believes that “the dust-pollution and oxidation problems of the [non-sintered] disc were
detected at an early stage thanks to the close cooperation with the [provider] team.”
As a final note to this section, we would like to remark the comment of the provider company CEO, who stated that “a classical
[waterfall] approach for the development of this product would have required two projects: one for the sintered disc and, once it is in
the market and not accepted by small laboratories, another project for the green [non-sintered] disc. […] Such duplication would have
significantly increased total costs, including opportunity costs.”

5.3. Discussion

Speed and flexibility have become of vital importance in the area of new product development. Within this demanding context, the
advantages of using an Agile framework are clear for highly innovative projects as the one presented in this paper.
A crucial point within any Scrum-based methodology is the development of the user stories and the Product Backlog. To facilitate
its construction, the SBNPD framework introduces an inception stage in which two standard industrial tools are used, the QFD and the
BMC. The introduction of these tools facilitates the task to industrial stakeholders as they are used to them. Thus, for instance, the “user
story” concept is intuitively embraced since it is related either to some value proposition and customer segments (BMC) or to the
customer needs of the House of Quality (QFD).
For the development of physical products the approach recommends the use within each Sprint of a BML cycle, see Ries (2011).
This cycle allows the incorporation of the validated learning concept as a part of this agile proposal. In this way, the initial ideas
(captured in the user stories) are validated and the fulfillment of the customer needs is measured.
Another novelty is the use of agile visual communication tools, such as Trello. The use of these kind of agile tools provide a visual
way to manage projects. The results show that the use of these tools instead of the typical board with cards (Conforto and Amaral,
2016) allow permanent and quick access to the current state of the project for all the participants. Moreover, information regarding the
project is centralized, avoiding duplicities.
Regarding managerial implications, it is important to remark that the SBNPD approach demands a high level of self-discipline and
self-management. The framework is considered simple and flexible by practitioners and, therefore, easy to implement. At this point it is
important to notice that self-discipline, self-management, flexibility and simplicity are inherent principles of agile frameworks, see
Conforto and Amaral (2010, 2016). In the case at hand, flexibility and simplicity are enhanced by the fact that the SBNPD framework is
made up of pure agile cycles.
Finally, we would like to note that there is still room for improvement regarding the reduction of conflicts among team members.
This issue also appears within other agile approaches (Conforto and Amaral, 2016). In this regard, interpersonal skills are especially
relevant and incorporating to the project a specialist on human factor management would be advisable. Within agile frameworks, there
exists a figure known as agile coach. Introducing specifically a similar role would probably help to solve personal/professional conflicts
among team members, with the possibility of being shared with other project teams in order to save costs and increase effectivity.

6. Conclusions

This research proposes a Scrum-based approach, called SBNPD, that borrows concepts from other methodologies in order to
describe a new framework adaptable to the development of physical products. The proposal is made up of pure agile cycles that
incorporate the concept of validated learning, obtained from a group of early adopters. In this way, products are “co-created” with
customers, which represents an important added value for SMEs that have to compete with large companies. Co-creation especially
serves SMEs as they can reach the market more quickly and efficiently.
This work should be considered as a complementary research to previous ones in the literature. In many aspects, the research
validates those results and, in addition, provides some improvement over other approaches. For instance, the framework provides
promising results regarding visual communication. In this regard, the use of agile tools, such as Trello, provide a visual way to manage
information and allow permanent and quick access to the current state of the project for all the participants. Every stakeholder takes
advantange of such agile tools, but SMEs are the ones that gain competitive advantages difficult to attain with traditional NPD ap­
proaches. In addition, information regarding the project is centralized, avoiding redundancies.
A case study has been described in detail. Up to our knowledge, there is a lack in the literature of cases described with such a
detailed level. In this way, the kind of projects and advantages of the SBNPD framework can be better appreciated by future practi­
tioners. This thorough description shows that the co-creation process inherent to the SBNPD approach has facilitated the development
of a dual product for two customer segments. Otherwise, as stated by a stakeholder, the development of this dual product would have
likely required two differentiated projects.
However, the current research has some limitations. With the participation of external early adopters, we have tried to combine
internal with external validity. We give solution to the internal problem of the provider company and, at the same time, try to show
how the framework adapts to the needs of some external stakeholders. Nevertheless, results cannot be still generalized from this single

13
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

case study and additional research should be made in order to check the validity of the findings.
Regarding future research, estimation is a topic to consider. In our approach, estimation has been made in terms of time, whereas in
agile frameworks it is made in terms of relative efforts. For instance, the concepts of agile estimation and velocity may be incorporated
to the framework. However, caution has to be taken when introducing such concepts, as it may be perceived as a difficulty by novel
practitioners and, therefore, change the current perception of simplicity that the participants have.
Finally, we provide some recommendations for practitioners in SMEs, namely: (i) the use of free agile tools as Trello; (ii) openness
to take new directions while running Scrum, e.g., adding Sprints when needed; (iii) related to the previous one, be attentive to
important business opportunities; (iv) implement agile coaching in teams; and (v) foster the co-creation with stakeholders.

Acknowledgments

Our acknowledgment to DIABOR, S.L. company manufacturer of diamond burs for dental use for its support in this work and for
allowing displaying masked real data and conclusions. This work was supported by the National Research Agency of the Spanish
Ministry of Science and Innovation, [grant numbers AEI/MTM2017-86875-C3-1-R (project Avances en Gestión de Riesgos para la
Seguridad) and AEI/RTI2018-094269-B-I00 (project MODAS-IN)]; the Madrid Region Education and Sports Department and the
European Social Fund [grant number 1880/2015 within the “Programa Operativo de Empleo Juvenil” and the Youth Employment
Initiative (YEI)]; and the DSLAB-URJC research group.

References

Akao, Y., 2004. Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design. Taylor & Francis.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., et al., 2001. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. http://
agilemanifesto.org/.
Beuer, F., Groesser, J., Schweiger, J., Hey, J., Güth, J.-F., Stimmelmayr, M., 2015. The digital one-abutment/one-time concept. A clinical report. J. Prosthodont. Dent.
Implants 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119115397.ch03. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Beuer, F., Schweiger, J., Edelhoff, D., 2008. Digital dentistry: An overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br. Dent. J. 204, 505–511.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350.
Boehm, B., 2002. Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer 35 (1), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.976920.
Boehm, B., Turner, R., 2003a. Observations on balancing discipline and agility. Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference, ADC 2003 32–39. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ADC.2003.1231450.
Boehm, B., Turner, R., 2003b. Using risk to balance agile and plan- driven methods. Computer 36 (6), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.1204376.
Cano, E.L., Moguerza, J.M., Redchuk, A., 2012. Six sigma in a nutshell. Six Sigma With R: Statistical Engineering for Process Improvement. Springer New York, New
York, NY, pp. 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3652-2_1.
Choi, Y.-J., Koak, J.-Y., Heo, S.-J., Kim, S.-K., Ahn, J.-S., Park, D.-S., 2014. Comparison of the mechanical properties and microstructures of fractured surface for Co-Cr
alloy fabricated by conventional cast, 3-d printing laser-sintered and CAD/CAM milled techniques. J. Korean Acad. Prosthodont. 52 (2), 67–73.
Conforto, E.C., Amaral, D.C., 2010. Evaluating an agile method for planning and controlling innovative projects. Project Manag. J. 41 (2), 73–80. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pmj.20089.
Conforto, E.C., Amaral, D.C., 2016. Agile project management and stage-gate model – a hybrid framework for technology-based companies. J. Eng. Technol. Manag.
40 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2016.02.003.
Conforto, E.C., Amaral, D.C., da Silva, S.L., Di Felippo, A., Kamikawachi, D.S.L., 2016. The agility construct on project management theory. Int. J. Project Manag. 34
(4), 660–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.007.
Cooper, R.G., 2001. Winning at New Products, 3rd edition. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Cooper, R.G., 2008. Perspective: the stage-gate idea-to-launch process–update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 25 (3), 213–232. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x.
Cooper, R.G., 2014. What’s next?: After stage-gate. Res.-Technol. Manag. 57 (1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5606963.
Cooper, R.G., Sommer, A.F., 2016. The agile-stage-gate hybrid model: a promising new approach and a new research opportunity. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 33 (5),
513–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12314.
Cooper, R.G., Sommer, A.F., 2018. Agile-stage-gate for manufacturers. Res.-Technol. Manag. 61 (2), 17–26.. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1421380.
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 (3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.
Edwards, K., Cooper, R.G., Vedsmand, T., Nardelli, G., 2019. Evaluating the agile-stage-gate hybrid model: experiences from three SME manufacturing firms. Int. J.
Innov. Technol. Manag. 16 (08), 1950048. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877019500482.
García-Camús, J.M., Viñas, J., 2015. Crisol de Grafito Para El Sinterizado de Metales y Aleaciones de Metales Semipreciosos Sin Necesidad Del Uso de Atmósfera
Inerte. Util. Model.
Gemino, A., Reich, B.H., Serrador, P.M., 2021. Agile, traditional, and hybrid approaches to project success: is hybrid a poor second choice? Project Manag. J. 52 (2),
161–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820973082.
Gliem, J.A., Gliem, R.R., 2003. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice
Conference in Adult, Continuing, Community Education.
ISO TC69/SC8, 2015. ISO 16355-1:2015 – Applications of Statistical and Related Methods to New Technology and Product Development Process – Part 1: General
Principles and Perspectives of Quality Function Deployment (QFD). Published Standard; ISO – International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.
org/standard/62626.html.
ISO TC69/SC8, 2017. ISO 16355-5:2017 – Applications of Statistical and Related Methods to New Technology and Product Development Process – Part 5: Solution
Strategy. Published Standard; ISO – International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/standard/62633.html.
Karlström, D., Runeson, P., 2005. Combining Agile Methods With Stage-Gate Project Management. IEEE Softw. 22 (3), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2005.59.
Kerr, C., Phaal, R., Thams, K., 2019. Customising and deploying roadmapping in an organisational setting: the LEGO Group experience. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 52,
48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.10.003.
Koen, P.A., 2007. The fuzzy front end for incremental, platform, and breakthrough products. The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., pp. 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470172483.ch6
Leffingwell, D., 2010. Agile Software Requirements: Lean Requirements Practices for Teams, Programs, and the Enterprise. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Leffingwell, D., 2018. SAFe 4.5 Reference Guide: Scaled Agile Framework for Lean Enterprises. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Li, K.C., Prior, D.J., Neil Waddell, J., Swain, M.V., 2015. Comparison of the microstructure and phase stability of As-cast, CAD/CAM and powder metallurgy
manufactured Co-Cr dental alloys. Dent. Mater. 31 (12), e306–e315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.10.010.
Marion, T.J., Friar, J.H., Simpson, T.W., 2012. New product development practices and early-stage firms: two in-depth case studies. J. Product Innov. Manag. 29 (4),
639–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00930.x.

14
E.L. Cano et al. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 61 (2021) 101634

Miyazaki, T., Hotta, Y., Kunii, J., Kuriyama, S., Tamaki, Y., 2009. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience.
Dent. Mater. J. 28 (1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.44.
Osterwalder, A., et al., 2004. The Business Model Ontology: A Proposition in a Design Science Approach. PhD Dissertation. University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Pichler, R., 2016. STRATEGIZE Product Strategy and Product Roadmap Practices for the Digital Age. Pichler Consulting.
Popli, R., Chauhan, N., Sharma, H., 2014. Prioritising user stories in agile environment. 2014 International Conference on Issues and Challenges in Intelligent
Computing Techniques (ICICT) 515–519. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICICT.2014.6781336.
Rasmusson, J., 2010. The Agile Samurai: How Agile Masters Deliver Great Software. Pragmatic Bookshelf Series. Pragmatic Bookshelf.
Reinertsen, D.G., 2009. The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development. Celeritas. https://books.google.es/books?
id=1HlPPgAACAAJ.
Ries, E., 2011. The Lean Startup: How Constant Innovation Creates Radically Successful Businesses. PFLO NFIC TPB. Portfolio Penguin.
Rijssenbeek, W.C.A., 2015. Applying Lean Startup Methods in Traditional Manufacturing Firms: A Theoretical Perspective. University of Twente Student Theses.
http://essay.utwente.nl/68477/.
Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., 2013. Scrum Guide. Internet. http://www.scrumguides.org/.
Schwaber, K., 1997. SCRUM development process. Business Object Design and Implementation, 117-34. April 1987. Springer London, London. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4471-0947-1_11.
Serrador, P., Pinto, J.K., 2015. Does agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success. Int. J. Project Manag. 33 (5), 1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2015.01.006.
Takeuchi, H., Nonaka, I., 1986. The new new product development game. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 3 (3), 205–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(86)90053-6.
Vedsmand, T., Kielgast, S., Cooper, R.G., 2016. Integrating Agile with Stage-Gate – How New Agile-Scrum Methods Lead to Faster and Better Innovation Integrating
Agile With Stage-Gate – How New Agile-Scrum Methods Lead to Faster and Better Innovation. Innovationmanagement.se, no. August: 1–14. http://www.
innovationmanagement.se/2016/08/09/integrating-agile-with-stage-gate/.

15