اثرات واسطه ای استفاده از طراحی به کمک کامپیوتر : از مهندسی همزمان تا عملکرد توسعه محصول
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|2684||2006||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 9893 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Operations Management, Volume 24, Issue 5, September 2006, Pages 494–510
As the rates of market change accelerate and customer expectations grow, product development becomes an increasingly important activity. In this environment, the performance of the product development process and the impact of product design on costs are critical factors for organizational success. To respond, firms are adding resources such as computer-aided design (CAD) to enhance product development efforts. The use of CAD technology is expected to enhance product development performance (development time, product quality, and design productivity) and to reduce product and manufacturing costs. To investigate these relationships, data were collected from 175 manufacturing firms regarding CAD usage, product development performance, and cost performance. From these data, valid and reliable instruments were developed to measure CAD usage. Structural model tests indicated that CAD usage has a positive impact on product development performance and cost performance.
Competition requires firms to procure and apply resources to create value by offering high quality products in a timely manner and with continuously improving efficiency (Gilmore and Pine, 1997 and Roth, 1996). Firms pursuing these objectives must emphasize faster and more efficient product development processes, shorter and more cost effective manufacturing cycles, and quicker delivery times (Shilling and Hill, 1998 and Stalk and Hout, 1990). These firms employ computer-based technologies to improve efficiency and minimize the detrimental effects of spatial and physical boundaries that divide key business processes. Computer-aided design (CAD) is a widely used tool for product design (Burcher and Lee, 2000 and Sun, 2000). Typically, CAD research focuses on adoption (Beatty and Gordon, 1988) and implementation (Adler, 1990, Beatty, 1992, Beatty, 1993, Buxey, 1990, McDermott and Marucheck, 1995, Robertson and Allen, 1992, Symon and Clegg, 1991 and Twigg et al., 1992). Prior research has used case studies that focus on prime users of CAD, such as manufacturers of printed circuit boards (Adler, 1990, Lee, 1989 and McDermott and Marucheck, 1995) or field research involving a small number of firms (Beatty, 1992, Beatty, 1993, Buxey, 1990, Scarso and Bolisani, 1996 and Symon and Clegg, 1991). Few studies have employed large-scale survey methods to assess CAD usage and to investigate its impact on product development. Some research has found that CAD implementation is consistent with time reduction in product design (Fitzgerald, 1987), improvement in product quality (DeMatthew, 1989 and Velocci and Childs, 1990), and cost reductions (Fitzgerald, 1987). Other CAD research indicates “gaps” between the expectation and realization of goals. The gaps appear as delays in achieving targeted goals, non-achievement of major goals, and unmeasurable achievement because goals are vague, obsolete, or unrealistic (Beatty, 1992 and Symon and Clegg, 1991). Underutilization and the ineffective use of CAD contribute to these performance gaps (Buxey, 1990 and Liker et al., 1995). Others attribute CAD's ineffectiveness to management's limited understanding of CAD's full potential, which leads to a failure to develop suitable organizational and technical support systems (Adler, 1989 and Twigg et al., 1992). This research defines CAD usage, differentiates between CAD use for engineering design and CAD use for cross-functional information sharing, and develops instruments to measure these variables. It considers the impact of CAD use on product development performance (product design time, quality, and productivity) and on reducing cost (product costs and manufacturing costs) and explicitly explores the link between utilization and performance. The instruments for CAD use are developed and the relationships among these variables are tested using data collected from 175 manufacturing firms.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This research supports the claim that concurrent engineering is important for product development. It also indicates that CAD usage for engineering design and cross-functional integration enhances a firm's ability to achieve product development goals. CAD usage improves product development time, quality, and productivity, and ultimately pays off in terms of reduced product and manufacturing costs. The framework for this study describes effective CAD usage as mediating a firm's product development process. From the CAD/CAM literature, theoretical rationale for the CAD usage construct is provided, and subsequently, the measurement scales for each of its two dimensions are developed. The final scales, listed in Appendix A, are short (four items or fewer) and easy to use. These scales have adequate content, construct, and discriminant validity. This research is based on survey data collected using a single informant from each firm, which can cause common method variance and introduce informant bias. In addition, the firms—operating in one of five industries in the US—vary in size: 55 were small (less than 100 employees), 74 were medium (100–499 employees), and 47 were large (500 or more employees). Perceptual data collected from each informant was qualified with a question on his/her level of knowledge of the firm's use of CAD and its impact. Comparison of ratings on CAD usage items showed respondents who claimed to be “somewhat knowledgeable” (only 10 respondents or 5.7% of the respondents) rated the impacts significantly lower than those who claimed to be “very knowledgeable” or “knowledgeable.” This suggests that bias regarding a firm's CAD usage, if any, will likely be downward and small. The results in this research should be applied with care, as post hoc analysis indicated some differences (at α = 0.05) based on firm size, type of operation, and industry. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the means of the constructs show that in comparison to medium and large firms, small firms did less concurrent engineering, had lower utilization of CAD for engineering design, and achieved less improvement in product development performance. t-tests on the means of the constructs indicated that firms with make-to-order operations used CAD for cross-functional integration more than those with make-to-stock operations, and achieved greater costs reductions. Post hoc analysis of the two most sizable industries represented in the data (86 and 23 respondents, respectively, from SIC 34, Fabricated Metal and SIC 37, Transportation) showed firms in the fabricated metal industry practiced less concurrent engineering than firms in the transportation industry. Sixty-two of the firms in the fabricated metal industry have make-to-order operations and are not large in size (i.e., less than 500 employees). This suggests that unlike large firms, small firms may not have the resources available to invest in the product development process (Meredith, 1987), and firms with high product variety have greater needs to effectively utilize CAD for controlling product and manufacturing costs (Buxey, 1990). The impact of these contextual variables should be explored in future research. Finally, this research does not distinguish between incremental and radical innovations in product development, i.e., no attempts were made to measure how CAD is used for creativity. The authors suspect that effective CAD usage in product development is important to both types of innovations given the increasing trend in collaborative product development across companies, as well as countries. Future research could expand the depth of CAD usage construct to better measure effective use and test factor invariance by type of innovation.