Talk:New product development

I cannot help feeling that this is a backward step - books by Pugh, Pahl & Beitz & Nam Suh and many others have been published that show both a long history of product design (Leonardo da Vinci iterated his ideas, I'm sure famous figures in other cultures will have done similar) and a modern, systematic approach. I particularly dislike the "Fuzzy front end" and "Fuzzy back end" - this seems to have little to do with Fuzzy Engineering, a distinct methodology, and in practice is not at all fuzzy - there can often be a distinct lack of specificity in the sales process but many industries employ Systems Engineers/Requirements Engineers/Concept Engineers who's daily lives accommodate creativity and who's outputs are anything but fuzzy. A modern gated product lifecycle methodology should start around identification of a potential market need/want and proceed right through to decommissioning/disposal/recycling.

Issues with this page.
This page has many issues. Its overall content message is mostly correct, but it lacks citations, feels disorganized, and even repeats whole sentences in some places. I don't have an issue with the fuzzy front end, this proceeds product definition. It's been documented and discussed since the 1980's. See paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304698952_The_%27Fuzzy_Front_End%27_of_Innovation JayBristol (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To me it seems like this page has been created mainly to get a backlink for airfocus.com Ryzovnik (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)