یکپارچه سازی تامین کننده؛کنترل فرآیندهای توسعه مشترک
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|21318||2006||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||11186 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2006, Pages 28–44
Co-development processes are an instrument used in several industries to gain a competitive advantage and to reduce development costs. An overview of the literature is given with the identification of a gap in current literature: the patterns of supplier participation in new product development. The main goal of this article is to seek possible ways of controlling the supplier integration process in new product development. Using 12 case studies of small and medium-sized suppliers of a medium-sized European enterprise doing business in the window and facades industry, the authors recognize several problems resulting from the interaction and coordination between customer and supplier in new development processes. With reference to the problem, propositions in form of possible solutions or advice are given. A typical new product development process is illustrated in the form of a blueprint description. The results of the investigation are transferable to the new product development process of various technical products, mainly in small and medium-sized enterprises.
For several years, suppliers, like customers, have been regarded as an important source of innovation (von Hippel, 1988). By using a supplier's additional resources, skills and capabilities, especially a supplier's greater design responsibilities, companies can develop and maintain a competitive advantage by reducing costs and cycle time and by offering more customized product characteristics or better product quality. Table 1 gives a detailed chronological review of the literature on co-development processes. Table 1. A chronological review of the literature on co-development processes Authors Focus Nature of study Findings and conclusions Clark (1989), Clark & Fujimoto, 1989 and Clark & Fujimoto, 1991, Comparing different practices in Japan, Europe and America Empirical Allowing suppliers greater responsibilities represents an important factor in the superior performance of the Japanese car industry in product development. Cusumano and Takeishi (1991) Comparing different practices in Japan and America Empirical Most of the suppliers in US auto industry are after the completion of detailed design. Most suppliers have only limited ways to influence the product concept. Those with more mature partnerships and relationships to the customers are given more flexibility. Brockhoff (1992) Transaction costs Empirical—survey Analysis of the impact of technical characteristics of the product under development and impact of contractual arrangements within which the development takes place. Gerlach (1992) Comparing different practices in Japan and America Empirical When the supplier is strongly embedded to a customer, as well as to other network suppliers, displaying a high degree of interdependence, opportunistic behavior is constrained while conditions for cooperative behavior are improved. Griffin and Hauser (1992) Interfaces within and between the involved companies Empirical Use of OFD leads to more efficient communication within the team and encourages more manufacturer-to-supplier communication. Birou and Fawcett (1994) Comparing different practices in Europe and America Empirical—survey Analysis of different characteristics of co-development with suppliers in both continents in different industrial areas. US companies use supplier involvement more often and earlier in the process than European companies because of market pressure. Dyer and Ouchi (1993) Comparing different practices in Japan, Europe and America Empirical Partnerships and alliances with suppliers as they are used by Japanese companies are an increasingly important strategy for firms to develop and maintain competitive advantages. Kamath and Liker (1994) Comparing different practices in Japan, Europe and America Empirical Japanese practices are increasingly used in America. It is suggested that few first-tier suppliers, enjoying trust-based long term partnerships with their customers, often participate in early stages of development process. Other suppliers are given specific requirements by the customer. Brown and Eisenhardt (1995) Organization of the development process—building and motivating teams Conceptual Integrative model of product development consisting of project team, project leader, senior management, suppliers and customer that effect process performance and product effectiveness and financial success. Wilson, Littler, Leverick, and Bruce (1995) Organization of the development process Empirical—case studies Identification of support factors and important risks for the success of co-development relationships to develop practical advice for the implementation of co-development projects. Kirchmann (1996b) Interfaces within and between the involved companies Empirical—interviews and survey Identification of reasons for customer organizations for co-development, instruments of information exchange and typologies of interfaces between customer and supplier organization. Baldwin and Clark (1997) Supplier involvement as a strategy Conceptual Partnerships and alliances with suppliers are an increasingly important strategy to develop and maintain competitive advantages. A prerequisite for this strategy is the modularity of the products. Dyer (1997) Transaction costs and transaction value Empirical Detailed examination of practices of Japanese firms in effective interfirm collaboration. Hartley, Zirger, and Kamath (1997) Identification of factors causing delays in co-development projects. Empirical—survey Working with a supplier that has strong technical capabilities reduces supplier-related delays. The benefits of supplier's responsibility for design, and greater buyer–supplier communication was not confirmed. Significant relationships were found between supplier-related delays, the priority of customer's top management on the project and the degree of technical change to overall project delays. Kasouf and Celuch (1997) Role of small suppliers Empirical—survey Factors are identified that discriminate between firms with high and low relationship orientation. Firms with a high relationship orientation are smaller and more optimistic about the industry's ability to support a greater number of firms in the future, and perceived faster technology change. Ragatz, Handfield, and Scannell (1997) Success factors for integration of suppliers Empirical—survey Identification of success factors for supplier integration based on used management practices and project environment factors. They distinguish relationship structuring differentiators and asset allocation differentiators for the success of a new product. Wasti and Liker (1997) Analysis of supplier involvement in Japanese car industry Empirical—survey Through hypotheses, developed based on the Japanese partnership model (relational contracting), predictions are made on the level of supplier involvement in design based on product characteristics and supplier capabilities. Wingert (1997) Competitive advantage through supplier integration Empirical Competitive advantages by supplier integration. Strategic and operative configuration of the Value Adding System in the electronic industry. Bozdogan et al. (1998) Timing of supplier involvement Empirical—case study Benefits are possible by proactive integration of suppliers from innovations enabled by the suppliers. Each participating member provides those skills and portions of the product for which they are best suited. This requires integrated product teams, long-term commitment to suppliers, co-location, good information flow and flexibility. Holmen and Kristensen (1998) Division of labor between customer and supplier Empirical—case study Using QFD technique the suppliers of a Danish company was divided into those who contribute through task partitioning and those who take part in an interactive product development process. A supplier may benefit from actively entering into the pre-development process. Karlsson et al. (1998) Role of product specifications Empirical—survey and case studies Implications of definition and changes of specifications to cost in a customer–supplier relationship in the auto industry. Several propositions to improve conflicts are made. Wynstra (1998), Wynstra, van Weele, and Axelson (1998), Wynstra, van Weele, and Weggemann (2001) Role of purchasing in supplier involvement Empirical—case studies An integrated framework of specific activities that constitute purchasing involvement in product development, which can help firms to implement, improve and to audit the involvement of purchasing in product development. Handfield, Ragatz, Petersen, and Monczka (1999) Supplier selection and timing of supplier involvement Empirical—survey Identification of supplier selection criteria and timing of supplier integration depending on the kind of product that has to be developed and on technology risks. Hsuan (1999) Division of labor between customer and supplier Empirical—case study Four different levels of modularization are distinguished: component, module, sub-system, system. A higher degree of modularization is possible when more collaborative forms of partnership are shared between the partners. McIvor and McHugh (2000) Organization of the development process Empirical—case study To avoid problems during the development process, cultural changes in both companies must accompany successful collaborative relationships. Success requires a change in mind-set understanding, trust, and commitment to the partnership. Ragatz, Handfield, and Petersen (2002) Supplier integration under conditions of technological uncertainty Conceptual Conceptual model of the effects of elements of supplier integration process on cost, quality, and time under conditions of technology uncertainty. Mikkola and Skjoett-Larsen (2003) Timing of supplier involvement Empirical—case studies The degree of early supplier involvement and of supplier-interdependence, the extent of asset specific investments, the way of supplier selection and the responsibility given to suppliers vary. Available resources of customer and supplier can be combined in new ways to improve the success of product development. Petersen et al. (2003) Model of supplier integration Empirical—case studies/survey A new product development project requires detailed formal evaluation and selection of potential suppliers prior to consideration for involvement. Only trusted suppliers should be approached to participate. Sharing of information can improve the process. Project outcome objectives should be shared between the partners. Supplier involvement is important when the technology is complex or the buying company does not have enough internal expertise. Koufteros, Vonderembse, and Jayaram (2004) Concurrent engineering and external integration Empirical—survey Concurrent engineering is regarded as the early involvement of an internal cross-functional team in new product development process. This is an important enabler of external integration with a supplier or a customer. McIvor and Humphreys (2004) Timing of supplier involvement Empirical—survey and case study Increased importance of supplier involvement in early stages of product development for OEM products. The analysis is based on information from the electronics industry. Cultural changes in customer and supplier organization are necessary. Perks (2005) Interfaces within and between the involved companies Empirical—case study Specification and synchronization are often critical in co-development projects. Such projects could lead to creative and valuable input if the sharing of information and control of activities is used. Petersen et al. (2005) Organization of the development process Empirical—survey Supplier selection should not only consider the capabilities of the supplier, but also the culture of the supplier. Involving the supplier in the determination of appropriate technical metrics and targets for the project are key elements in project team effectiveness. Table options In collaborative product development, the concentration has been on integrating customer requirements into new product development from the supplier's point of view (Brockhoff, 1998, Fließ, 2001, Kirchmann, 1996a and Urban & von Hippel, 1988) with a general approach to customer integration. The area of supplier integration has not received that much attention. Therefore, many managers characterize the execution processes for integrating suppliers as a black box (Petersen, Handfield, & Ragatz, 2003, p. 285 and Petersen, Handfield, & Ragatz, 2005, p. 372). The aim of this article is to bring light into the black box of the co-development process between customer and supplier and especially to identify problems of controlling the co-development process and to suggest means and procedures to overcome these problems. Cooperation with suppliers may be designed in several ways. The possibilities are described in Section 1.2. The analysis itself is based on 12 case studies representing the different cooperation designs. The research methodology is explained in Section 2. Results of the case studies are presented and discussed in Section 3 using a stage differentiating approach. The section ends with a summary of the propositions. In Section 4 the results are interpreted and discussed. In Section 5 the question of whether and how the insights of the discussion can be transferred to different industries is discussed and proposals for further research are made.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The research results have been generated by case study research. This instrument was regarded as appropriate for the objectives of the investigation. It was adequate to have interviews with those persons who were directly involved into the co-development projects. Typical examples found in several case studies were the controlling of product costs and the coordination and control of activities in time according to the schedule. Other characteristics could only be identified in single case studies. For those characteristics, it has to be assessed whether they are typical for co-development processes at all. The new development projects in the analysis did not have a common structure because they refer to different business units in a customer organization and have a different length of time and different number of people involved. Among the business units differences in new development process design exist. The procedures are always based on different products that are typical for the business units. This allows for the transfer of the results to other branches of technical industry. The co-development processes were initiated by a major medium-sized enterprise as the customer and several small and medium-sized enterprises as suppliers. The teams usually consisted of a few people on both sides of the customer–supplier interface. Therefore the results could be transferred to other medium-sized companies producing technical products. The propositions summarized in Table 3 and the coordination tasks and coordination instruments in Table 4 could be used as a guideline for co-development processes. In other industries, like the auto industry, or in equipment construction, the project teams are larger, and the projects are more complex. There are obviously several differences to software development or to service engineering. For this areas of application it has to be checked in detail whether certain results could be applied. The research could be continued in different ways. Case study research always leads to qualitative results. The results could not be quantified in numbers. Therefore, it would be useful to make a quantitative analysis based on the characteristics that have been recognized. Another possibility for further research is to ask management and R&D-Controlling about their perception about the problems and possible solutions to investigate the differences. Another way to proceed would be to search for economical reasons for the identified problems and results. The main problems refer to principal agent theory and measurement cost/transaction cost theory because a lot of conflict of interest problems and strategic concealments between the supplier and the customer exist. As the discussion and interpretation of the case study findings show different coordination instruments can be implemented to overcome the principal agent problems, they can be used to transfer information from one party to another in order to scale down information asymmetry and to avoid opportunistic behavior. Therefore, the employment of these instruments can be regarded as either signaling or screening actions depending on the party demanding or applying them. On the other hand, the employment of the phase specific coordination instruments can have a trust building effect as their application shows that the parties are not intentionally hiding information. Therefore, in cooperation with the contract designs mentioned as a solution according to the principal agent theory, coordination instruments can help to lower the contractual and informational gaps in co-development processes. Additionally, measurement cost theory can be used to answer the question which instrument should be applied by whom in which phase under which circumstances. Therefore, additional analyses have to be conducted.