14 JUNE 2017 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

JOHN BANG MATHIASEN

AARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTAND TECHNOLOGY

HVEM HAR TETEN – PRODUKTUDVIKLING ELLER SUPPLY CHAIN?

John Bang Mathiasen

Department of Business Development and TechnologySchool of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University

Formålet med præsentationen er at komme med et bud på samspillet mellem produktudviklingen

supply chainen

Et gensidigt samspil mellem produktudvikling og supply chain er centralt for at gennemføre en effektiv

udviklingsproces samt for den efterfølgende eksekvering af driften. Den geografiske spredning af

produktudviklings- og supply chain aktiviteterne udfordrer virksomhedernes muligheder for at sikre dette

samspil.”

JOHN BANG MATHIASEN

7 SEPTEMBER 2017 ASSOCIATE PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTAND TECHNOLOGY

Information andcommunication

technologiesGlobal NPD

Individual productsto individualcustomers

Globalisation:Local global

competition

Time as a competitive

parameter/weapon

Shortening productlife-cycle

Technologydevelopment

Focusing core-competences

The challenges for the supply chain

Members of the Focal Company’s Supply Chain

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Co

nsum

ers

/ E

nd-C

usto

me

rs

Tie

r 3 to

n c

usto

me

rs

1

2

1

1

2

n

1

2

Initi

al S

upp

liers

Tie

r 3 to

n s

upp

liers

1

2

3

1

2

1

2

3

1

Tier 1Customers

Tier 2Customers

Tier 3 toConsumers/

End-CustomersTier 2

SuppliersTier 1

Suppliers

Tier 3 toInitial

suppliers

n

1

Focal Company

JOHN BANG MATHIASEN

7 SEPTEMBER 2017 ASSOCIATE PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTAND TECHNOLOGY

Idea/conceptcreation

Architecturaldevelopment

Designphase

Evaluation and test

Pilot production

Ramp-up production

Launch

Time

20 %

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

Accumulated Cost

60 %

8 %

80 %

20 %

95 %

50 %

Inspired by: Sanders and Klein (2012: 414); Anderson (2014: 166)

Where should the Supply chain management attention be (1)?

Idé/konceptgenerering

Arkitekturudvikling

Konstruktionfasen

Evalueringog test

Pilot produktion

Ramp-up produktion

Lancering

Tid

Vore muligheder for at påvirke

design

Fokusering/involvering af Operations

Supply chain optimering indenfor de rammer, andre har fastlagt Inspireret af: Slack et al. 2016

Where should the Supply chain management attention be (2)?

JOHN BANG MATHIASEN

7 SEPTEMBER 2017 ASSOCIATE PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTAND TECHNOLOGY

PLC 15 years

PLC 9 years

Two personal examples

JOHN BANG MATHIASEN

7 SEPTEMBER 2017 ASSOCIATE PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTAND TECHNOLOGY

The strategic influence(s) of the supply chain (1) - Beware of ”intel inside”

IBM mainframe 1970s In the late 1970s, Apple Computer

The first IBM PC came out in 1981

What enabled DELL computer to create a sustainable business

Competition

Reflection!!

What determines the competitive position of a company?

Source: Hamel & Prahalad

The leafs are the final products, e.g. a Volkswagen car

The branches are business areas (SBU),E.g. Seat, Skoda, Volkswagen, Audi

The steam is the main product, i.e. HW & SW integration

The deep roots are the core competences. That is to say thebasic knowledge to develop and HW/SW applications

The current portfolio of products and competences is the foundation for the competitive strength?

Correct in the short term

The strategic influence(s) of the supply chain (2) – competition advantages”

The perspective of competence considers the interacting companies as a portfolio of competences

The generation, absorption and transfer of knowledge/competence in the business network is the primary parameter for achieve competitive advantage.

But long term competitive advantages are enabled by the ability of the company todevelop, manage and coordinate a portfolio of competences

The strategic influence(s) of the supply chain (3) – competition advantages”

John Bang Mathiasen

Department of Business Development and Technology

School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

johnbm@btech.au.dk

Globalisation of Concurrent Engineering Activities:

Transferring-, Translating- and Transforming Approach

The International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering (TE2017),

Singapore, from 10 July to 14 July 2017

Motivation and purpose of the study

The geographical dispersion of concurrent engineering (CE) activities makes it difficult to achieve aconvergent understanding among practitioners

As CE involves different professional disciplines: Practitioners operate in various working practices (Bucciarelli, 2002) Knowledge is embedded in practice (Rosenkranz et al., 2014) and continuously modified (Zouari et al.,

2015) The contextual embeddedness of knowledge implies that the use of a one-size-fits-all “knowledge-

transfer best practice” approach is problematic

The purpose of the paper is to reveal the consequences of applying a “one-size-fits-all” approach and by combining these empirical findings with practice-based theories to suggest a method to manage CE in a globalised set-up.

The research question guiding the research is:

To what extent does the one-size-fits-all approach influence the achievement of a convergent understanding?

Theoretical review and positioning (1)

A best practice for managing the development and a best practice for sharing knowledge

Dombrowski et al. (2014) 181 different guidelines Anderson (2014) 142 different guidelines

Best practice for managingthe development

Best practice forsharing knowledge

The enabler for CE is a combination of guidelines and lessons learned from past CE activities (Matta et al., 1998; Korposh et al. 2011; Araci et al., 2016)

Often conflicting requirements & guidelines (Mottonen et al., 2009)

Can have a negative influence on practitioners’ experience, judgement and creation of useful knowledge (Dekkers et al. 2013)

Might paralyse practitioners (Karr-Wisniewski and Lu, 2010) Might overload practitioners with information (Galbraith, 1974)

?

Theoretical review and positioning (2)

Newness means that the practitioner(s) can draw neither on their experience nor on existing solutions to handle a CE activity Newness arises due to new knowledge is or has been created outside the working practice in question

Interdependence means whether or not the handling of a specific activity within a situated practice influences or is influenced by the handling of activities in other working practices Interdependence emerges because of coordinative issues

A stream of research highlights that due to the substance of knowledge differs, a one-size-fits-all approach to share knowledge within and across working practices is inappropriate

Theoretical review and positioning (3)Sharing knowledge

Syntacticapproach

BOUNDARYShared and sufficient syntax; is efficient because differences and dependencies have been specified and agreed to in advance

Function X Function Y

Information

Information

More information is betterMore communication is betterMore team strategies are better

Semanticapproach

BOUNDARY

Even if a common syntax or language is present, interpretations are often different which make communication and collaboration difficult

Function X Function Y

Information

Information

Interpre-tation

Interpre-tation

Not just producing more information Learn about the semantic differences

Pragmatic approach

BOUNDARY

Cross-boundary challenges knowledge cannot be separated from an individual’s activities in its practice – knowledge is situated and purposive

Function X Function YInformation

Information

LocalisedEmbeddedInvested

LocalisedEmbeddedInvested

Understand what is “at stake” forpractitioners when handling an activity

The two cases

The two cases illustrate a company located in a high-wage area (Global-Company) and two captured facilities, one located in Eastern Europe (Facility-Europe) and one in Far East (Facility-Asia)

Global-Company makes the functional specifications, after which one of the two abroad facilities takes charge

The paper presents and analyses CE of six different products

Analyses and findings (1)

Both Global-Company and the abroad facilities handle all six developments as business as usual projects

The applied one-size-fits-all approach entails that the degree of newness and/or degree of interdependence are notsubject matters for any discussion upstream the development

Habitually, all practitioners anticipate low degree of newness and thus it make sense for them to draw on existingknowledge and solutions

The practitioners do not question the existing set-ups in the manufacturing- and supply chain, which entails thatthey do not reflect upon the pros and cons of reusing the current product-, manufacturing- and supply chainarchitecture

In four of the six projects, the perceived newness is higher than expected, which results in costly iteration and inone situation a termination of the development

The one-size-fits-all approach impedes the practitioners to put the CE on the right track at the outset of thedevelopment

Only when the practitioners conducted the iteration the interdependence for sharing knowledge was realised

Analyses and findings (2)

At the point of transition the one-size-fits-all knowledge transfer approach is habitually applied

The consequences of the actual degree of newness and interdependence are not acknowledged before the abroad facility gives up

Analyses and findings (3)

This paper suggests a proactive and ongoing reflective assessment of the anticipated degree of newness and degree ofinterdependence; the assessment should be precise enough to understand how difficult it will be for the practitioners to gain accessto and utilise the practice-embedded knowledge

A low degree of newness and interdependence means that the practitioners are familiar with the development draw on well-known solutions. As practitioners know how to understand the handed over knowledge the transferred approach is suitable.

Medium degrees of newness and interdependence entails that practitioners are unfamiliar with the handed over knowledge to accomplish the CE

activity. To gain a convergent understanding the practitioners have to do a translation of the accessible practice-embedded knowledge.

High degree of newness and interdependence the handed over know-ledge misfits the current technical solutions and/or manufacturing/supply

chain set-ups and thus the prevailing understanding within the specific wor-king practice; something is at stake. A transformation of knowledge is required, either within one or among all involved working practices.

Interdependence

High

Low

Newness

High

Transforming

Translating

Transferring

Idége-nerering

ConceptPhase

Development phase

Implementationphase

Relationphase

Operationphase

Ressource-indsatsen

Supply Chain design

Supply Chain opbygning

Supply Chain optimering

Innovationsprocessen

Opsummering

JOHN BANG MATHIASEN

7 SEPTEMBER 2017 ASSOCIATE PROFESSORAARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTAND TECHNOLOGY

Håber vi er enige om, at den tid er forbi

Både produktudviklingen og supply chainen har teten

Spørgsmål/kommentarer?

AARHUS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTAND TECHNOLOGY