یکپارچگی تأمین کننده در توسعه محصول جدید : هماهنگی محصول، فرایند و طراحی زنجیره تامین

In many industries, firms are seeking to cut concept to customer development time, improve quality, reduce the cost of new products and facilitate the smooth launch of new products. Prior research has indicated that the integration of material suppliers into the new product development (NPD) cycle can provide substantial benefits towards achieving these goals. This involvement may range from simple consultation with suppliers on design ideas to making suppliers fully responsible for the design of components or systems they will supply. Moreover, suppliers may be involved at different stages of the new product development process. Early supplier involvement is a key coordinating process in supply chain design, product design and process design. Several important questions regarding supplier involvement in new product development remain unanswered. Specifically, we look at the issue of what managerial practices affect new product development team effectiveness when suppliers are to be involved. We also consider whether these factors differ depending on when the supplier is to be involved and what level of responsibility is to be given to the supplier. Finally, we examine whether supplier involvement in new product development can produce significant improvements in financial returns and/or product design performance. We test these proposed relationships using survey data collected from a group of global organizations and find support for the relationships based on the results of a multiple regression analysis.

Research in new product development (NPD) has shown that a number of factors are important to the creation of successful new products. Two of these more firm-centric factors include design for quality and design for manufacturability (Hauser and Clausing, 1988). If we extend our scope of vision beyond the individual firm, we must then recognize the importance of design for supply chain ( Appleyard, 2003, Hillebrand and Wim, 2004, Hult and Swan, 2003, Joglekar and Rosenthal, 2003 and Petersen et al., 2003). Although extensive research has focused on integrating customer requirements into new product development efforts (Griffin and Hauser, 1996), it is only relatively recently that supplier integration has received significant attention ( Primo and Amundson, 2002, Spina et al., 2002 and Stump et al., 2002). Congruent with the need to integrate multiple linked processes in the supply chain, theoretical research advocates that early and extensive supplier involvement results in a faster development process ( Dyer and Singh, 1998, Handfield et al., 1999, Monczka et al., 1998 and Petersen et al., 2003). Despite the criticality of this subject to managers, mechanisms for successfully coordinating the decisions of how products are designed, how they are manufactured and/or delivered, and how the supply base can support the manufacturing/delivery of such a design are still largely undetermined. Moreover, supply chain design is effectively determined during the product development stage—when product, process and information systems decisions are specified and determined. The nature of relationships between customers, manufacturers and suppliers are often established early in the new product development process as well ( Handfield and Bechtel, 2002 and Ragatz et al., 2002). It is at this stage that critical decisions are made, not only with respect to the functionality of the product for the customer, but indeed the packaging, the logistical channels, the source of materials, as well as the selection of product and process technology that will provide the end user with the desired functionality. In the words of a senior purchasing executive at a major automotive company interviewed during this research: “unless you can impact the sourcing early in product development, you have almost no impact on the resulting design of the supply chain”. Despite the importance of this relationship, many managers we spoke with, as well as other researchers, characterized the execution processes for integrating suppliers into NPD projects as a “black box” (Handfield et al., 1999 and Monczka et al., 2000). Prior research suggests that the participation of these outside constituents is important, but that many of the processes associated with integration of third parties (suppliers) into the process are lacking (Corswant and Fredriksson, 2002, Corswant and Tunalv, 2002, Petersen et al., 2003 and Ragatz et al., 1997). Additional research into managerial actions and performance metrics to increase the likelihood of successful supplier integration is needed. We propose that early supplier integration (ESI) is an important coordinating mechanism for decisions that link product design, process design, and supply chain design together. Several elements of ESI act as coordinating mechanisms in this context. One area that is of importance to managers relates to the critical elements required to develop and manage the business relationship with suppliers. A second area of importance is the extent to which such supplier integration efforts have a meaningful financial benefit, as pursuing them is certainly not without a substantial investment of time and resources. One North American manager we interviewed explained this challenge using an interesting metaphor: Suppliers are like fish in the ocean. We (the buyers) are the fishermen. The key challenge facing us is how to put out the right bait, so that we can pull up the right suppliers at the right time and get them to help us develop our products. There are several problems associated with fishing: How do we know we are using the right bait? How do we know the right kinds of fish are in the water? Most importantly, when we catch a fish, how do we know whether it is the right fish, and whether we should keep it or throw it back in the water? Finally, how do we know the fish will follow through with its commitments if we decide to keep it? Other issues that arise in supplier integration include tier structure (supply chain design), degree of responsibility for design, specific responsibilities in the requirement setting process, when to involve suppliers in the process, inter-company communication, intellectual property agreements, supplier membership on the project team and alignment of organizational objectives with regard to outcomes. The first goal of this study was to identify specific ESI strategies/processes that when employed, resulted in improved product designs and improved manufacture and delivery of products (improved processes) later in the production cycle. To achieve this goal, we developed a model that explains new product development project success as a function of (1) an effective supplier selection process, (2) supplier involvement in establishing business performance metrics and targets for the project, and (3) supplier involvement in establishing technical performance metrics and targets for the project. Further, the model also explains firm financial success and product design performance as a function of NPD project team effectiveness. The second goal of this study was to assess whether the relationships described in our first goal (see above) were moderated by either the stage at which the supplier was integrated into the buyer's new product development project (e.g. earlier or later in the NPD process) or the level of responsibility that was given to the supplier in the new product development project (e.g. more or less responsibility for product design). To achieve this goal, we tested our explanatory model using multiple regression with interaction terms to represent these moderating effects. The next sections will develop the theoretical underpinnings for the relationships described as well as an explanatory model and related hypotheses.

The findings of this study have important implications for managers responsible for integrating suppliers into new product development projects. Our findings emphasize the criticality of the supplier selection decision in this type of effort, considering not only the capabilities of the supplier, but also the culture of the supplier, which will have an impact on the buying firm's ability to interact with the supplier effectively. Careful attention to this decision is important regardless of the stage of the new product development cycle at which the supplier will be integrated, and regardless of the level of responsibility the supplier will be assigned in the project. The findings also highlight two important types of input that buying firms might seek from the supplier. Involving the supplier in the determination of appropriate technical metrics and targets for the project, and agreeing jointly with the supplier on these targets was shown to be a key element in project team effectiveness. This is particularly important in situations where the supplier is to be given a high level of responsibility in the design process. Of lesser importance was input from the supplier on the business metrics and objectives for the project. Such input was found to have a significant positive impact on decision making effectiveness in the case of “Grey Box” types of integration. Finally, the findings provide additional support, building on the prior literature, for the value of supplier involvement in the new product development process. Our study offers strong support for the belief that input from a carefully selected supplier facilitates better decision making by the development project team. This improved decision making in turn, promotes the development of a better design and, though the relationship is not as strong, better financial performance. These results should be encouraging to companies trying to decide whether involving suppliers in their new product development efforts is worth the effort required. Further research needs to be done to explore other factors that may influence project team effectiveness in supplier integration efforts. Beyond the types of input from suppliers that can facilitate better decision making, it would be of interest to examine how various practices buying firms might employ in managing the relationship with the supplier might influence the process.