In my experience spanning from the 70s to today, I have learned a lot about the product development cycle. I am an engineer (Optics, optical and detection systems, not audio but applicable).
So what is the role of the engineer? It is to create to the best of it's ability a product that meets the requirements that have been agreed upon. Marketing weighs in with what their research says the customer base needs and is willing to pay for. Sales inputs what they can honestly pitch. QA and service provide input on what types of components can and cannot be used. Maufacturing responds with what can be built in time within budget. R&D inputs that given all these requirements, we can or cannot build a prototype that will meet the objectives. many discussions are held. Compromises are made.
Finally, agreement. R&D has promised that it can deliver a working prototype that meets the quantitative objectives agreed on.
We've all seen the cartoon about what can go wrong when product development goes awry. I'm speaking about the cases when it is done right.
Henceforward during the development phase, R&D determines how to meet the requirements agreed on. These are real, measurable requirements. During this process, many, many reviews take place to keep the development process on track to meet the requirements (and deadline, of course). R&D's goal is to meet these requirements, not to develop what it thinks the customer wants. It is thinking about the approach(es) that meet the requirements as agreed upon.
At any time, this process can be altered. New info from marketing, etc. The development process responds. More development and discussions ensue to change direction to align with the new requirement(s). This goes on until a working prototype is demonstrated to meet the requirements or until the project is abandoned (many reasons for this).
R&D is now gone. Manufacturing takes over. R&D takes on a new product development process.
Product development engineers do not choose this or that type of component (say capacitors or tube brand) unless agreed on with marketing (who may say that the product can't be sold unless it has XXX component). They choose a component that meets the requirements and does not break the budget, is available readily now and in the future, and that has published, technically believable performance specs, and has a manufacturer that has an excellent track record of delivering products to spec, on time, on budget.
Manufacturing takes over and immediately works on cost-cutting. They make recommendations, build prototypes, test performance that show the product still meets the requirements while being less expensive to make. R&D can weigh in here if it feels a mistake has been made, but it is manufacturing that must make the final decision. R&D is out of that decision making process. Of course, if some disaster in manufacturing takes place, it is all hands on deck to solve the problem.
R&D works to build a product that meets the agreed on performance requirements. Period.
This works at small companies also. I've been the third employee in a company and employee number 10000+. Very similar approaches.
Products can be developed and sold without engineering or manufacturing. Everything in that process is outsourced. Since there is no input from other disciplines, this can lead to the development of products that were designed to break one or more of the laws of Physics. The R&D folk in that company (if employed) will never agree with this.
Oppo is an example that (for a while) outsourced everything but marketing and purchasing. They had a small staff of technical advisors who did an excellent job of creating well-thought, inexpensive, highly performing products. I have been in their facility when HQ was in Mountain View, CA. Front room - people on the phone; back room - stacks of product and a loading dock. That's it. I bought every generation of their audio products. Very excellent all-in-one digital players.
One approach is to find some "expert" that is willing to say their product is blah, blah good. Usually money or prestige (power) is involved. This is not product development. This does not always lead to a reliable, in spec, cost effective product.
I suspect that Audio Research, Technics, Mark Levinson (at least at the beginning) and other well known product maufacturers that have survived the test of time market, develop, sell and support their products in this manner.
