Traditionally the CODP has been defined as a mono-dimensional variable, dealing mostly with manufacturing operations, but this definition is no longer adequate since Customization and Time To Market have become the new market winners. Companies are shifting their attention to New Product Development (NPD), therefore it results necessary to rethink the concept of CODP as a bi-dimensional variable, built on two dimensions: the Production Dimension and the Engineering Dimension. Analysing the Engineering Dimension it emerges that a NPD process model for Engineer-To-Order (ETOED) and Adapt-To-Order (ATOED) situations is still missing. Furthermore, the differences that can be identified upstream and downstream the CODPED need to be verified and extended. In order to fill these gaps, 11 companies were interviewed, choosing those that offered customized products and had a well-structured and rationalized NPD process. It was observed that pure ETOED cases are very rare and that is more adequate to use the term Customized-To-Order (CTO) to indicate both ETOED and ATOED scenarios. A CTO process model was developed, including also the parties involved in each phase, and differentiated into three versions, on the base of the relevant contingency factors (product innovativeness, market nature and degree of customization). Furthermore some practical guidelines about the differences between the upstream and downstream management of the NPD process emerged, in terms of KPIs, triggers, dedicated capacity, dedicated resources, work organization, departments involved, suppliers typology, required analysis, activities planning, prototyping and engineering criteria. Also some of these results showed to be related to contingency variables: custom business share as regards the dedicated capacity and planning activities; product complexity as regards prototyping; degree of customization as regards the dedicated competences and work organization; product innovativeness and market nature as regards the departments involved and work organization.
In passato il CODP è stato definito come una variabile mono-dimensionale, legata principalmente alle attività di manufacturing, ma tale definizione non risulta più adeguata dal momento che Customizzazione e Time To Market sono diventati i nuovi market winner. Le aziende stanno focalizzando la propria attenzione sul processo di sviluppo nuovo prodotto (NPD), rendendo quindi necessario ripensare il concetto di CODP come una variabile bi-dimensionale, basata su due dimensioni: produzione (PD) e progettazione (ED). Analizzando la seconda dimensione si riscontra la mancanza di un modello per il processo di NPD nei casi Engineer-To-Order (ETOED) e Adapt-To-Order (ATOED). Inoltre, le differenze che si identificano a monte e a valle del CODPED restano da verificare ed arricchire. Al fine di colmare questi gap, 11 aziende sono state intervistate, selezionando quelle che offrivano prodotti custom e che avevano un processo di NPD strutturato e razionale. Si è osservato che l’ETOED puro è molto raro e che è più adeguato usare il termine Customized-To-Order (CTO) per indicare sia ETOED che ATOED. Si è sviluppato un modello per il processo CTO, comprensivo delle parti coinvolte in ogni fase e differenziato in tre versioni, sulla base dei fattori contingenti rilevanti (innovatività di prodotto, natura del mercato e grado di customizzazione). Inoltre sono emerse alcune linee guida relative alle differenze tra la gestione del processo di NPD a monte e a valle del CODPED, in termini di KPI, input, capacità dedicata, risorse dedicate, organizzazione del lavoro, funzioni coinvolte, tipo di fornitori, analisi necessarie, pianificazione, prototipi, criteri di progettazione. Anche alcuni di questi risultati hanno mostrato una relazione con delle variabili contingenti: la quota di business custom per la capacità dedicata e la pianificazione, la complessità di prodotto per i prototipi, il grado di customizzazione per le competenze dedicate e l’organizzazione del lavoro, l’innovatività di prodotto e la natura del mercato per le funzioni coinvolte e l’organizzazione del lavoro.
The implications of the engineering decoupling point positioning on the new product development process
TOMA, LAURA
2014/2015
Abstract
Traditionally the CODP has been defined as a mono-dimensional variable, dealing mostly with manufacturing operations, but this definition is no longer adequate since Customization and Time To Market have become the new market winners. Companies are shifting their attention to New Product Development (NPD), therefore it results necessary to rethink the concept of CODP as a bi-dimensional variable, built on two dimensions: the Production Dimension and the Engineering Dimension. Analysing the Engineering Dimension it emerges that a NPD process model for Engineer-To-Order (ETOED) and Adapt-To-Order (ATOED) situations is still missing. Furthermore, the differences that can be identified upstream and downstream the CODPED need to be verified and extended. In order to fill these gaps, 11 companies were interviewed, choosing those that offered customized products and had a well-structured and rationalized NPD process. It was observed that pure ETOED cases are very rare and that is more adequate to use the term Customized-To-Order (CTO) to indicate both ETOED and ATOED scenarios. A CTO process model was developed, including also the parties involved in each phase, and differentiated into three versions, on the base of the relevant contingency factors (product innovativeness, market nature and degree of customization). Furthermore some practical guidelines about the differences between the upstream and downstream management of the NPD process emerged, in terms of KPIs, triggers, dedicated capacity, dedicated resources, work organization, departments involved, suppliers typology, required analysis, activities planning, prototyping and engineering criteria. Also some of these results showed to be related to contingency variables: custom business share as regards the dedicated capacity and planning activities; product complexity as regards prototyping; degree of customization as regards the dedicated competences and work organization; product innovativeness and market nature as regards the departments involved and work organization.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
2015_04_Toma.pdf
accessibile in internet solo dagli utenti autorizzati
Descrizione: Testo della tesi
Dimensione
17.13 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
17.13 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in POLITesi sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/10589/107700