The Abernathy-Utterback model (A-U model) has significant impacts on innovation studies and is adopted by many scholars. Although many studies quote Abernathy and Utterback (1978), the dominant design idea was not explicitly shown in the model. Thus, the model used in Abernathy and Utterback (1978) differs from the A-U model imaged by us. The A-U models, adopted by many scholars, are actually formulated through the accumulation of the three critical works of Utterback and Abernathy (1975), Abernathy and Utterback (1978), and Abernathy (1978). The A-U models were finally completed by Abernathy (1978), becoming the A-U models that were imaged by us. However, Teece (1986) and Utterback (1994), who significantly popularized the A-U model, quoted the model in Abernathy and Utterback (1978) as a completed model. This was re-quoted, and the misconception that the A-U model was the same as the model in Abernathy and Utterback (1978) was disseminated. Abernathy and Utterback's (1978) original paper is a strange compilation that independently introduces a diagram of the A-U model even before the title page. Moreover, there is neither an explanation nor a reference to the diagram in the paper. In fact, many researches quoting these works are unaware of this fact.
Japanese companies often criticize themselves on their own “nurumayu [lukewarm] nature.” Takahashi (1989) states that, in reality, however, the lukewarm feeling felt by organization members can be explained through the effective temperature hypothesis. The organization's propensity to change as a system is measured as system temperature, while the member's propensity to change as an organization person is measured as body temperature. The lukewarm feeling that the member feels can be explained using effective temperature, which is defined as the system temperature minus the body temperature. The effective temperature hypothesis was tested using the JPC Survey conducted every year from 1990 to 2000, where N = 10,356. The results show the coefficient of determination of 0.9886 with a surprisingly neat straight line, demonstrating a direct relationship wherein the lukewarm feeling ratio drops as the effective temperature rises. This paper also shows the possibility that the lukewarm feeling and effective temperature are leading indicators of the economic recession.
It is difficult to identify easily adaptable software in its completed form. In its nature, the definition of “complete” is unclear. As a result, if one expects perfection in software, software products will never be released; the only alternative is to release software if it runs, and then gradually refine it over time. This results in the implicit conventional wisdom that the “continuous development” of the software is the best quality assurance. This paper looks at the highly capable Windows e-mail software called “Hidemaru Mail.” With current progress in IT, it is possible that the concept of software quality assurance can be applied to a broader array of products and services.
This paper suggests three footnotes regarding heavyweight product manager (HWPM). HWPM, a term coined by Fujimoto (1989), refers to powerful managers that act as both internal and external integrators. Footnote 1: Fujimoto (1989) used the term “product manager” for project managers responsible for product development to emphasize their long-term and wide range of responsibilities and authority, which continue even after the completion of a product development project. Footnote 2: The list of internal integration index and external integration index used to measure HWPM and the organizational variables that comprise the two are given in the Appendix of Clark and Fujimoto (1991). However, the organizational variables noted as composition factors for these indices are misprints. In fact, it is necessary to reverse the organizational variables that refer to the indices. Footnote 3: Based on their empirical study, Clark and Fujimoto (1991) classify the following two cases as “lightweight product manager structures.” First is one in which “the degree of internal integration is high while that of external integration is low,” and second is when “the degree of internal integration is low while that of external integration is high.” However, the two product development organizations significantly differ. By classifying them, it is possible to glean deep insights into the relationship between the product development organization and product development performance.