614 research outputs found
Unwrapping front -loading: Explaining problem-solving performance in complex product development.
No full textThe global markets for complex products continue to be increasingly competitive as product lifecycles decrease and customer demand for variety increases. In order to meet the demands of their environments, many product development (PD) organizations are focusing efforts on reducing the time it takes to develop a new product from concept to market introduction, i.e. PD lead time. Recent studies related to concurrent engineering and lean product development advocate front-end loading the development process in order to reduce lead time and improve overall effectiveness. These studies assume that by loading the front, or beginning, of a development project with work, firms can not only reduce lead time but improve other aspects of PD performance such as quality and productivity. However, while this assumption is generally accepted and considered reasonable there is little support from the extant literature that explains how a firm can measure front-loading efforts. What is needed is another way of perceiving front-loading so that it can be better assessed. We propose that through a problems-solving perspective of PD the dynamics of front-loading and its consequences can be better understood. In this dissertation, we first introduce problem-solving performance as a combination of problem-solving efficiency and problem detection effectiveness. Through a detailed study of a single development project at a North American automotive firm, we establish how problem-solving performance affects front-loading. With a thorough understanding of problem-solving performance we conduct a high-level cross case comparison of problem-solving performance at a North American automotive firm (end-loader) and Toyota (front-loader). Several underlying problem-solving philosophies which develop Toyota's front-loading capability are identified and translated into several recommendations for change at the North American automotive firm. A discussion of several implications, both theoretical and managerial, concludes this study.PhDApplied SciencesIndustrial engineeringManagementSocial SciencesUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/126424/2/3253273.pd
Linking modularity and cost : a methodology to assess cost implications of product architecture differences to support product design
No full textThesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology, Management, and Policy Program, 2002.Includes bibliographical references (p. 239-255).Reaching saturation levels, many markets in modem industrial societies tend to fracture into smaller 'niche' markets, and create a need for greater variety. At the same time, increasing product variety in non-growing markets results in decreasing production volumes per model, which tends to increase costs. Modularity as a design concept has been suggested to be able reconciling these opposing effects. Most descriptions of modularity characterize products through idealized extremes, such as 'modular' versus 'integral.' While conceptually powerful, this notion is very difficult to operationalize. Consequently, it has been very problematic to determine the economic consequences of modularity. This thesis presents a methodology to overcome this problem. The development of the methodology is split into three parts: what is modularity, what costs are considered, and how can the link between the two be established? First, to operationalize modularity, an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon was conducted and an alternative framework developed. The multi-disciplinary analysis revealed that modularity is a bundle of product characteristics rather than an individual feature, and that different disciplines and viewpoints emphasize different elements of this bundle. Consequently, the descriptive product architecture framework developed in this thesis encompasses all dimensions identified in the analysis, but simultaneously enables one to comparatively measure those characteristics along individual dimensions.(cont.) Second, to improve the understanding of the multitude of costs that occur over a product's life, a product life-cycle view has been used to investigate the cost effects of early design decisions with respect to product architecture. In addition, a review of the cost modeling literature identified the gap that exists between some empirical work identifying particular product features' effects on particular costs, and the more general design guidelines such as design-for-manufacturing (DFM) or design-for-assembly (DFA). Finally, the thesis constructed a link between modularity and cost by applying the product architecture framework and technical cost modeling to experimental case studies. Case study subjects were four different car door structures. The case studies demonstrate the cost consequences of individual product architecture dimensions by isolating their effects from competing explanations. Enabling the translation of business goals into focused design advice, the proposed methodology represents a tool to reconnect management and engineering worlds.by Sebastian K. Fixson.Ph.D
Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product, process, and supply chain design decisions
No full textIncreasingly heterogeneous markets, together with shorter product life cycles, are forcing many companies to simultaneously compete in the three domains of product, process, and supply chain. Dependencies among decisions across these domains make this competitive situation very complex. To address this complexity, three‐dimensional concurrent engineering (3D‐CE) has been suggested ([Fine, C.H., 1998. Clockspeed—Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage. Perseus Books, Reading, MA.]). Applying 3D‐CE requires an operationalization of one of its core elements: the product architecture. In this paper, I develop a multi‐dimensional framework that enables comprehensive product architecture assessments. The framework builds on existing product characteristic concepts such as component commonality, product platforms, and product modularity. The framework’s utility is illustrated with two example products, showing how individual product architecture dimensions link decisions across different domains. This framework can be used to focus advice for product design on product architecture dimensions that are critical for a given operational strategy, to assess advantages and limitations of operational strategies in conjunction with given product architectures, or to develop dynamic capabilities such as planning effective product–operation strategy combinations.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147201/1/joom345.pd
Modularity and Commonality Research: Past Developments and Future Opportunities
No full textResearch on modularity and commonality has grown substantially over the past 15 years.
Searching 36 journals over more than the past 35 years, I identify over 160 references in the
engineering and management literature that focus on modularity or commonality in the product
and process development context. Each of the references is analyzed along the dimensions
subject, effect, and research method. The subjects of these studies have been products,
processes, organizations, and even innovations, although the set of references shows a strong
preference towards products. Similarly, a broad range of effects has been studied, albeit with the
topic cost dominating all other effects. A variety of research methods has been applied to the
study of modularity and commonality but the distribution of research methods differs
substantially for modularity and commonality research. Despite the wealth of existing research,
there are still significant opportunities for future research. In particular, studies that incorporate
modularity and commonality’s multiple effects on various players along the supply chain, that
combine multiple research methods, and that follow systems over time appear very promising
Product architecture as a strategic weapon: How product architecture design changes affected an industry's competitive structure.
No full textThis research attempts to address a research question: 'what are causes and consequences of the interactions between product architecture and industry structure?' In order to address the research question, this investigates four specific questions. First, how do product architectures change over time? Second, why do product architectures change? Third, how do industry structures change over time? Lastly, why do industry structures change? To investigate the four specific questions, this study examines the U.S. road and mountain bicycle component industry during the period from 1980 to 1992. A major finding is that causality runs from product architecture to industry structure in the bicycle component industry: following the evolution of product architecture, the industry structure evolves from a disintegrated to an integrated form. Findings from Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 are believed to provide valuable contributions to the literature and informative managerial implications.PhDApplied SciencesBusiness administrationIndustrial engineeringSocial SciencesUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/126253/2/3238050.pd
BEYOND TRANSACTION EFFICIENCY: THE EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE INTERDEPENDENCE ON FIRMS' R&D SCOPE DECISIONS.
No full textTeaching Innovation Through Interdisciplinary Courses and Programs in Product Design and Development: An Analysis at Sixteen U.S. Schools
No full textThe multiple faces of modularity -- a literature analysis of product concept for assembled hardware products
No full textWhat exactly is Product Modularity? The answer depends on who you ask
No full text'Product modularity' has recently experienced a significant increase in interest in the academic literature. While the concept of product modularity is used across a wide range of academic research areas, substantial variations exist in the ways in which the concept is described and interpreted. In this paper, I develop a framework to represent the similarities and differences that appear across these variations of the concept of product modularity. Next, through an extensive literature search I construct a set of 85 references representing the use of product modularity in the engineering and management literature over the past 30 years (1975–2006). With help of the framework I then analyze the use and interpretation of product modularity in every reference in the set. The analysis demonstrates that the product modularity concepts taken together really encompass a bundle of product characteristics rather than a single condition, and individual research areas exhibit certain preferences in which they define and operationalize product modularity. I conclude with some recommendations for future research. Overall, this paper strives to provide a vocabulary to improve cross-disciplinary understanding of product modularity
Modularity and Commonality Research: Past Developments and Future Opportunities
No full textResearch on modularity and commonality has grown substantially over the past 15 years. Searching 36 journals over more than the past 35 years, I identify over 160 references in the engineering and management literature that focus on modularity or commonality in the product and process development context. Each of the references is analyzed along the dimensions subject, effect, and research method. The subjects of these studies have been products, processes, organizations, and even innovations, although the set of references shows a strong preference towards products. Similarly, a broad range of effects has been studied, albeit with the topic cost dominating all other effects. A variety of research methods has been applied to the study of modularity and commonality but the distribution of research methods differs substantially for modularity and commonality research. Despite the wealth of existing research, there are still significant opportunities for future research. In particular, studies that incorporate modularity and commonality€ٳ multiple effects on various players along the supply chain, that combine multiple research methods, and that follow systems over time appear very promising.Modularity, Multidisciplinary Research, Innovation, Commonality,
- …
