موقعیت استراتژیک از نقطه نظر ضریب نفوذ سفارش

The order penetration point (OPP) defines the stage in the manufacturing value chain, where a particular product is linked to a specific customer order. Different manufacturing environments such as make-to-stock (MTS), assemble-to-order (ATO), make-to-order (MTO) and engineer-to-order all relate to different positions of the OPP. These may be considered as product delivery strategies, having different implications for manufacturing objectives such as customer service, manufacturing efficiency and inventory investment. Furthermore, the OPP may differ between products and over time for a particular manufacturing firm. In this paper, the positioning of the OPP is treated from a strategic perspective. Market, product, and production factors are identified that affect the OPP positioning and the shifting of the OPP upstream or downstream in the manufacturing value chain. The major factors are demand volume and volatility, and the relationship between delivery and production lead times. These factors are included in a model that allows the manufacturing firm to choose the right product delivery strategy. Different manufacturing strategies must be developed for pre-OPP operations (i.e. upstream; forecast-driven) vs. post-OPP operations (i.e. downstream, customer-order-driven), since these two stages are fundamentally different. As a consequence, a manufacturing firm that has an ATO product delivery strategy must differentiate between MTS operations (upstream the OPP) and MTO operations (downstream the OPP). For example, the competitive priorities differ: price for pre-OPP operations but delivery speed and flexibility for post-OPP operations. Therefore, decision categories, such as production planning and control, and performance measurement must be designed accordingly. Guidelines are provided for this strategic choice.

The positioning of the order penetration point (OPP) is successively becoming a topic of strategic interest. With global markets, increasing global competition and shorter product life cycles, the choices and shifts between make-to-order (MTO) and make-to-stock (MTS) policies must be made faster and at a strategic level. The motivation for this paper is to investigate factors that affect the positioning and shifting of the OPP. Of special interest is the rationale of forward shifting, something that the author has experienced in a few manufacturing firms. Backward shifting is generally assumed to be desirable to reduce the number of activities that are planned using uncertain information, i.e. forecast-driven, potentially reducing or eliminating inventories. Berry and Hill (1992) refer to the OPP choice as that of choosing a master planning approach, distinguishing between MTS, assemble-to-order (ATO), and MTO. This approach is further developed in Vollmann et al. (1997) and Hill (2000). The discussion in the literature on the strategic importance of the positioning of the OPP is very sparse. Sharman (1984) introduced the term OPP in a logistics context. He defines the OPP as the point where product specifications typically get frozen, and as the last point at which inventory is held. He argues that the OPP depends on a balance between competitive pressure and product cost and complexity. Olhager and Östlund (1990) discuss the use of push and pull systems relative the position of the OPP, arguing that pull-type systems are applicable upstream of the OPP and push-type systems are necessary for downstream operations. Their analysis also included the bottleneck position and product structure as factors influencing the integration of push and pull systems. In this paper, we try to add factors and perspectives to derive a more holistic view of the strategic relevance of choosing the right product delivery strategy, i.e. choosing the right OPP position. First, we define the OPP and discuss its characteristics. The factors that affect and to some extent constrain the position of the OPP are categorised and a conceptual impact model is developed. The OPP is then related to a manufacturing strategy, implying that a distinction is necessary between pre-OPP and post-OPP operations, since these have fundamentally different characteristics. Then, the reasons and the means for redesigning or rebalancing the manufacturing value chain, by shifting the OPP backwards or forwards, are explored. Finally, a model is presented for choosing the right product delivery strategy.

In this paper, we have presented several factors that affect the position of the OPP, and discussed the strategic rationale of shifting the OPP forwards or backwards. Extreme backward shifting will place the firm in an ETO situation, where design, delivery speed and flexibility are typical order winners. On the other extreme, forward shifting as far as possible leads to an MTS situation where price is the dominating order winner. Such shifts are related to the competitive advantages in terms of order-winning criteria and to the extent these need to be strengthened or must be realigned due to a change in the market. There is a trade-off between (i) maximum manufacturing efficiency that dominates the pre-OPP operations and (ii) minimum inventory investment that dominates the post-OPP operations, while at the same time maintaining a high and consistent level of customer service. In this context, the positioning of the OPP is the very core of this trade-off. The OPP divides the manufacturing value chain into two separate parts that must be differentiated with respect to manufacturing strategy. This implies that two manufacturing strategies must be developed: one for pre-OPP operations and one for post-OPP operations. We presented some basic strategic issues associated with pre-OPP vs. post-OPP operations. We also presented a model that can assist in identifying the proper product delivery strategy, with respect to demand volume and volatility, and the relationship between the production and delivery lead times. In conclusion, we hope that this paper can contribute to the understanding of the OPP, its characteristics and strategic importance.