Impact Analysis of New Product Development under Proprietary
Relationship
ABSTRACT
Although supplier involvement in new product development (NPD) projects has
become an increasingly popular method for improving competition, few studies
investigate the impacts of changing environment on the NPD from dynamic view. In
this paper, therefore, system dynamic simulation is employed to explore that under
four manufacturer-supplier relationships: Serial Type, Early Start in the Dark Type,
Early Involvement Type, and Integrated Problem Solving Type, the influences of
pulse inputs on the system. The most important implication of this research is that
when facing rapidly outside change, a tightly linked relationship with the supplier in
the NPD makes the enterprise quick response with regard to fluctuant impacts,
allowing it to better compete in the evolving market. Subsequently, conclusions and
suggestions are provided.
1. INTRUDCTION
In recent years, new product development (NPD) has become a focal point of
competition, leading to advantages such as shorter time to market and higher product
quality, for example ranging from consumer packaged goods to electronics, from
appliances to pharmaceuticals, and from automobiles to steel. Traditionally the
innovation process has been viewed as a sequence of separable stages (e.g., design,
production, and marketing), like technology-driven model and customer or
need-driven model (Van De Ven, 1986), but some researchers have proposed the
parallel perspective in the NPD (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Repenning, 2000).
Since a large portion of complex products is needed to be done / participated by
outside suppliers, it has become increasingly clear to researchers that the success of
many firms has depended on their ability to gain advantages based on establishing
1
closely important relationship with suppliers. Therefore, to succeed in a rapidly
changing environment, the firm promoted and sustained tightly linked, integrated
supplier relationships, a lot of firms increasingly realize that supplier involvement in
new product development can be beneficial with regard to reduced cost, decreased
product development time, improved quality, increased product value, innovative
technologies that can help capture market share, supplier-originated innovations and
so forth.
Within the last decade, radical inventions with occasional discontinuities that
emerge because of jumps to a different technology trajectory (Dosi, 1988; Sahal, 1985)
make customers reduce their purchasing demands; shortened product life cycles
results in high drop-out rate; increased global competition contributes to diversities of
products. All various changes distinct from before cause demands of product much
fluctuation. Thus, modern firms must take quick response to deal with increased or
decreased workload. To the best knowledge of this study, despite a number of
researches so far have illustrated relative impacts of supplier involvement on
enterprise performance in the NPD, few papers to date have explored that in different
level of manufacturer-supplier relationship, the influence of different workload on
system performance. Therefore, this paper, according to the level of supplier
involvement and timing of involvement in a parallel NPD, distinguishes four types:
Serial, Early Start in the Dark, Early Involvement and Integrated Problem Solving,
investigating the impacts of pulse due to workload disturbance on the system in
different conditions.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follow. Section 2, a review of
relevant literature of supplier involvement is presented. Section 3, we construct a
model structure. Section 4 then provides the results and Section 5 of the article
provides conclusions and suggestions for future research.
2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
A large and diverse literature now exists on supplier involvement (Bonaccorsi &
Lippaini, 1994; Handfield et al., 1999; LaBahn & Krapfel, 2000; Liker et al., 1996;
McIvor et al., 2006; Kaufman, et al., 2000; Wasti & Liker, 1997; Wheelwright &
Clark, 1992; Wynstra & Pierick, 2000; Wynstra et al., 2001). Among which scholars
illustrate the level of the manufacturer-supplier relationship in terms of distinct
dimensions.
Currently
there
involvement-communication-based
are
three
view
popular
(Wheelwright
ideas:
&
timing
Clark,
of
1992),
strategy-based view (Kaufman et al.’s research, 2000) and Media Richness Theory
-based view (Wynstra & Pierick, 2000). In the following section, we describe the
topics relevant to supplier involvement, including the statements and related benefits
in the NPD mentioned in earlier studies, and the roles categorized by previous
scholars.
2.1 Supplier Involvement and Its Benefits in the New Product Development
Competitive pressures are forcing companies to design new products faster,
better and cheaper (Krafcik, 1988; Stalk, 1988). It is now generally understood that
this can best be accomplished through concurrent engineering of the product and the
manufacturing processes that make the product (Liker and Fleischer, 1992;
Wheelwright and Clark, 1992). A common method for accomplishing this is through
cross-functional teams that bring product developers into direct communication with
manufacturing engineers, marketing executives, and others whose input is important
to the product development effort. Since much of the product is manufactured by
outside supplier, the suppliers must be involved in product development. Liker et al.
(1996) argued that giving suppliers responsibility for product development can
provide access to a wealth of in-depth technical knowledge and innovative capacity,
and avoid replication of that expertise in the buyer’s organization. Another scholar
3
suggested that as suppliers become responsible for the design of entire systems or
subassemblies, systematically they are integrated into the firm’s production and
design process (Bonaccorsi and Lipparini, 1994). In addition, more and more
suppliers are becoming involved in their customers’ development projects. This
involvement may range from giving minor design suggestions (e.g. to improve a
component’s manufacturability) to being responsible for the complete development,
design and engineering of a specific part or sub-assemble (Wynstra and Pierick, 2000).
LaBahn and Krapfel (2000) defined early supplier involvement, or ESI as the
cooperation between component suppliers and original equipment manufacturers
beginning at the product conceptualization stage.
Putting supplier involvement effectively into the product value/supply chain will
be a key factor for manufacturers in achieving the improvements necessary to remain
competitive. Many companies have recognized that involving suppliers in the NPD
efforts has the potential to provide significant results. A number of reports in the
popular articles have illustrated some of the benefits of early involvement of supplier
in the NPD projects, such as reduced cost (Bonaccorsi and Lipparini, 1994; Handfield
et al., 1999; Wynstra et al., 2001; McIvor et al., 2006), decreased product
development time (Bonaccorsi and Lipparini, 1994; Handfield et al., 1999; Wynstra et
al., 2001; McIvor et al., 2006), improved quality (Bonaccorsi and Lipparini, 1994;
Handfield et al., 1999; Wynstra et al., 2001; McIvor et al., 2006), increased product
value (Wynstra et al., 2001), innovative technologies that can help capture market
share (Handfield et al., 1999), and supplier-originated innovations (Bonaccorsi and
Lipparini, 1994).
2.2 The Roles of Supplier Involvement
Firms consistently recognize that execute NPD projects more effectively and
efficiently than their competitors are rewarded by significant strategic advantage, and
4
effective problem solving is a critical and necessary factor in the NPD. According to
the level of communication and actual work in time, Wheelwright and Clark (1992)
created four types of upstream-downstream interaction, the
overall reference is
shown as Fig. 2-1: (1) Serial Type: In this type, after the upstream group has
completely finished its design, the downstream group just begins its work.
Manufacturer-supplier
relationship
is
within
one-way,
“batch”
style
of
communication, and there is no integration in the problem solving. (2) Early Start in
the Dark: In this type, the downstream group faces a pressure of deadline, hoping has
an early start on the project. However, the upstream continues to employ a batch style
of communication, only at the end of its work, so that the downstream group in the
dark. Although there is “concurrent” concept, in actuality no information and no
integration in the problem solving are between manufacturers and suppliers. (3) Early
Involvement Type: Although the upstream group is still involved in the design of the
part well before the downstream group begins its work, the mode move toward real
integration, manufacturers and suppliers engage in two-way communication of
preliminary, fragmentary information. (4) Integrated Problem Solving Type: In this
type, downstream engineers not only participate in ongoing dialogue with their
upstream counterparts, but use that information and insight to get a flying start on
their own work. Manufacturers and suppliers engage in rich, bilateral and intense
communication, so that the NPD is accelerated and the gap between current design
and customer requirements are reduced.
5
z Serial Type
z
Early Start in the Dark Type
z
Early Involvement Type
Communication
Integrated Problem
Solving Type
z
Involvement
Fig. 2-1 Four Types of Upstream-downstream Interaction
In analyzing how customers involve their suppliers in the design process,
Bonaccorsi and Lipparini (1994) considered two important dimensions: the timing of
their involvement; and the degree of competition among them at the time of their
involvement. By combining these dimensions, three different models to the topic of
the involvement of suppliers in the NPD are as followings. The first model is
traditional model. In this model, suppliers are involved after the design is completed
and technical specifications issued. The design process is a black box for suppliers
and the information disclosed by the leading firm is limited. The second model is
Japanese model. The involvement of suppliers in the NPD usually occurs in the
concept stage. Collaborative supplier relations are seen as the way to speed the pace
of new product introduction and sustainable long-term performance. These suppliers
join the firm’s meetings at the very beginning of the NPD process, and the different
players engage in an interactive pattern of communication. The third mode is
advanced model. This model often takes place in high-tech industries, where a small
group of preferred suppliers are involved in the NPD before the definition of product
6
specifications. They are requested to invest in development work, and invited their
capabilities. In the advance model, supplier selection does not take place necessarily
at an early stage of the NPD process. All the invited suppliers are supposed to invest
in the pre-selection development work, even if only one of them will win.
In Kaufman et al.’s research (2000), transaction cost economics provides helpful
theoretical constructs for building a strategic supplier typology. This typology divides
along two dimensions: technology and collaboration. By dividing these variables into
high and low categories, the study creates four distinct supplier strategies: (1)
Commodity Supplier: firms compete on low cost and low price, offering products
with little or no differentiation. Both manufacturers and suppliers have low switching
costs in standard market contracts. (2) Collaboration Specialist: firms that use general
assets and skills develop enhanced collaborative techniques to fulfill current and to
anticipate future customers’ needs. By outsourcing parts that do not use core
manufacturing know-how, suppliers’ customers reduce holdup uncertainty. (3)
Problem-Solving Supplier: Problem-Solving Supplier is described by a high
technology and a high collaboration. Because suppliers that compete on their ability
become mutually dependent on one another, trust reduces holdup uncertainty. (4)
Technology Specialist: suppliers invest heavily in firm-specific skills and assets for
producing proprietary products, striving to produce product of the highest quality and
performance and reduce their reliance on a few customers. Manufacturers benefit
from relationships with these suppliers.
Wynstra and Pierick (2000) proposed a model, the Supplier involvement
Portfolio, to provide support for setting priorities with regard to the involvement of
suppliers in a NPD project. This portfolio distinguishes four types of supplier
involvement:
Strategic
Development,
Critical
Development,
Arm’
Length
Development and Routine Development, on the basis of two variables, the degree of
7
responsibility for product development that is contracted out to the supplier and the
development risk. In Wynstra and Pierick’s work, they employed Media Richness
Theory to illustrate more comprehensive descriptions of four types of involvement.
1.
Strategic Development: Strategic Development is characterized by a high
development risk and a high degree of supplier responsibility for the
development. At this stage, most information is imprecise and vague, and
this inevitably leads to a high level of equivocality and high risks for both
parties. Therefore, the manufacturer and the supplier proceeds closely and
intensively two-way communication, discussing diverse content mainly
focusing on a lot of details regarding technical and commercial information.
2.
Critical Development: Critical Development is characterized by a high
development risk and a low degree of supplier responsibility. At an early
stage, the manufacturer asks the supplier for concrete information.
Consequentially, the level of equivocality is low, but the level of uncertainty
is still high. The manufacturer initiates one-way communication that the
topics mostly concern market and technical details.
3.
Arm’ Length Development: Arm’ Length Development is characterized by a
low development risk and a high degree of supplier responsibility. In this
situation, the supplier receives rather vague information which implying a
high level of equivocality, initiating one-way communication that are
mainly development with respect to technical issues and sometimes
purchasing for coordination purposes.
4.
Routine Development: Routine Development is characterized by a low
development risk and a low degree of supplier responsibility. Due to the
manufacturer draws up technical or purchasing specifications, coordinates
all changes and monitors the construction and testing of the prototypes,
8
equivocality and uncertainty are low. The communication requirements thus
are minimal, no need to contact each other frequently. Both parties appoint a
person to do two-way communication about status exchange.
Prior studies have provided us with the importance of supplier involvement on
the NPD. However, most researchers assume that the organization is in static
circumstances, ignoring impacts derived from dynamic environment. Therefore,
taking dynamics into consideration, this paper chooses Wheelwright and Clark’s
thinking in accord with the article’s purposes, employing such a simply, dynamic
classification
to
examine
impact
analysis
of
NPD
under
different
manufacturer-supplier relationships.
3. MODEL STRUCTURE
In this study, system dynamic simulation is used to discuss research purposes.
We adopt four types of supplier involvement, including Serial, Early Start in the Dark,
Early Involvement and Integrated Problem Solving (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992),
assuming the firm engages in a parallel NPD process containing two phases: advanced
and current phases shown as Fig. 3-1, and the resource allocation strategy that the
current phase has a higher priority to use resources is applied since the product launch
date is fixed (Repenning, 2000).
The model represents a simplified development environment in which a new
product is introduced to the market every twelve months. The development cycle is 24
months, so the organization always works on two projects at once. The data of
simulations are from 2000 to 2020. In the stable system, we change workload at 5th
year to test pulse effect from the variable in the parallel NPD process model:
Advanced Tasks Completed of advance work.
9
3.1 Variable Measurement
The different relationships with the supplier involvement initiative are captured
in the following way. First, it is assumed that there is a capacity shift between the
advanced and the current phases on the basis of the supplier relationships. The
assumption is based on when working with the supplier under different relationships
the manufacturer puts different ratios of resources to construct their interactions.
Second, the total number of engineers may increase in the whole system on the basis
of the responsibilities relate to the suppliers. When the supplier has intensive
communication, they would put more R&D resources into the NPD process as the
additional available engineer hours. Thus it can be seen that the NPD model in the
study is characterized by allocated resource ratio and the amount of resource. The
concepts in modeling these four types of supplier involvement are described as
following:
1.
Serial Type: In this type, the supplier don’t participate in the NPD process
until the manufacturer has completely finished its design, and one-way
communicate between them leads to discrepancies with regard to the
product. To solve the question about lacking information, the manufacturer
must put more resource into the current phase to meet launch date.
2.
Early Start in the Dark Type: In this type, although the manufacturer and the
supplier work in parallel, and in this sense are “concurrent”, in fact, the
supplier still work in the dark and they operate without information.
However, being aware of a pressure of deadline from the supplier, the
manufacturer increases resource in the advanced phase.
10
Advanced Tasks
Introduced
Advanced Tasks Not
Completed
Advanced Tasks in Testing
Advanced Task
Completion Rate
Advanced Tasks Falling
Testing
Advanced Tasks Reworked
Advanced Work
Advanced Tasks Completed
Advanced Tasks Passing
Testing
Advanced Tasks to be
Reworked
Advanced Rework to
Current Rework
Advanced Not Completed
to Current Not Completed
Advanced Completed to
Current Completed
Tasks to be
Current Work Current
Reworked
Advanced in Test to
Current in Test
Tasks in Rework Launched
Current Tasks Falling
Testing
Current Tasks Not Completed
Current Tasks Reworked
Current Tasks in Testing
Current Tasks Completed
Current Tasks Passing
Testing
Current Task Completion
Rate
Task in Testing Launched
Current Tasks Launched
Fig. 3-1 The parallel NPD process model
3.
Early Involvement Type: In this type, manufacturers and suppliers engage in
two-way communication of preliminary, fragmentary information. To get
benefits from early involvement such as the much better understanding of
the issues and objectives embodied in the design, the supplier increases the
number of engineers in the NPD.
11
4.
Integrated Problem Solving Type: In this type, the manufacturer and the
supplier work at the beginning of the NPD process, and intimate, rich
pattern of communication occur in a timely way. In this situation, thus, the
manufacturer inputs more resource in the advanced phase and the supplier
increases engineers to in the project.
The effects of the working with the supplier are starting at the first model year,
and in order to analyze the system trajectory of the model, the setting of the index is
given as follows:
s: the model year
f(s): the fraction of the work that is accomplished in advanced phase in model year s.
ACRR: the actual rate of current re-work
NDC: Normal Development Capacity is equal to the Available Engineer Hour (AEH)
divided by the Normal Hours required per engineering Tasks (NHT)
DCRi: Desired Completion Rate is equal to Work Remaining/# of months to product
launch.
PA: the probability of creating rework in the advanced phase
PC: the probability of creating rework in the current phase
A: the total number of tasks in a project
12
T
f ( s) =
∫0
ACRR(t )dt
A
T
f ( s) =
∫0 (1 − PA )Min( DCR A (t )), Max( NDC − CCWR(t ),0)))dt
A
⎛ A
⎛
(1 − PA ) T ⎛⎜
1
1 ⎞⎞⎞
C
Min⎜⎜
⋅ , Max⎜⎜ NDC −
⋅ ,0 ⎟⎟ ⎟⎟ ⎟dt
∫
0 ⎜
A
1 − PC T ⎠ ⎠ ⎟⎠
⎝
⎝ 1 − PA T
⎝
⎛ A
⎛
(1 − PA ) T ⎛⎜
1
A(1 − f ( s − 1) ) 1 ⎞ ⎞⎟ ⎞⎟
⎜
⎜
f ( s) =
Min
,
Max
NDC
⋅
−
⋅ ,0 ⎟⎟ ⎟ dt
⎜
⎜1− P T
A ∫0 ⎜⎝
1 − PC
T ⎠ ⎠ ⎟⎠
A
⎝
⎝
⎛ A
⎛
(1 − PA )
A(1 − f ( s − 1)) ⎞ ⎞⎟
f ( s) =
, Max⎜⎜ NDC ⋅ T −
,0 ⎟⎟ ⎟
⋅ Min⎜⎜
A
1
P
1
P
−
−
A
A
⎝
⎠⎠
⎝
⎛
⎛ NDC ⋅ T
⎞⎞
1 − PA
f ( s ) = Min⎜⎜1, Max⎜⎜
(1 − f ( s − 1)),0 ⎟⎟ ⎟⎟
−
⎝ A /(1 − PA ) 1 − PC
⎠⎠
⎝
⎛
⎛ NDC ⋅ T
⎞⎞
1 − PA 1 − PA
−
+
⋅ f ( s − 1),0 ⎟⎟ ⎟⎟
f ( s ) = Min⎜⎜1, Max⎜⎜
⎝ A /(1 − PA ) 1 − PC 1 − PC
⎠⎠
⎝
f ( s) =
(1)
4. EXPERIMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
After elaborate investigating, the research finds that over fifteen period, no
matter how variables change, the system show a robust state. 3-Dimensional figure
shown as Fig. 4-1 shows the interactions among resource, engineer and performance.
Table 4-1 is the additional parameter settings of the model. FRA* indicates how
many additional ratios of resources the manufacturer puts into the affected phase;
Engineers are increased with the degree of communication that the supplier held. In
this paper, we assume 1 and 300 as base case for FRA* and the number of engineer
separately. In the Serial Type, we increase 1/6 to 1/3 of allocated resource ratio into
current phase and the same amount into the advanced phase in the Early Start in the
Dark Type. Moreover, 1/6 to 1/3 of engineers are increased in the Early Involvement
Type. Finally, in the Integrated Problem Solving Type, increasing 1/3 to 1/2 of
allocated resource ratio into the advanced phase and 1/6 to 1/3 of engineers.
The following are the results of simulations of actual phase trajectories for a
13
variety of pulse inputs under different relationships with the supplier.
Fig. 4-1 The robust state among resource, engineer and performance
14
Table 4-1 Additional parameter settings
Relationship
type
Early
Early
Integrated
Base
Serial
Start in
Involve
case
Type
the Dark
ment
Type
Type
Problem
Parameter
Solving Type
Increase
Increase
1/6 to 1/3
1/6 to 1/3
into
into
Increase 1/3 to
current
advanced
1/2 into
phase and
phase and
Increase
advanced phase
(controlled by the
decrease
decrease
0%
and decrease the
manufacturer)
the same
the same
same amount in
amount in
amount in
current phase.
advanced
current
phase.
phase.
The Threshold
Value (FRA*) a
1
Increase
# of Engineers
addition
Increase
b
(controlled by the
Increase
Increase
al 1/6 to
additional 1/6 to
0%
0%
1/3 into
1/3 into NPD
NPD
process
300
supplier)
process
a
denoted as allocated resource ratio
b
denoted as resource
4.1 Serial Type
Fig. 4-2 and Fig. 4-3 show the results of experiments when the ratio of resource
increases in the Serial Mode under different pulse size. Although putting one-six (Fig.
15
4-2) and one-third of allocated resource ratio (Fig. 4-3) into current phase, the system
doesn’t promptly return to the stable equilibrium, approximately at f(s)=0.72, and
reveals the trend of a downward spiral. Thus it can be seen that in the Serial Mode no
matter how pulse size alters, there is no obvious difference with regard to the system’s
performance.
Selected Phase Trajectories:
Serial Mode (17%)
B
1
C
0.8
D
A
0.6
f(s)
0.4
A=-750
B=-300
C= 750
D=1750
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
f(s-1)
Fig. 4-2 The Serial Type’s actual phase trajectories with the ratio of 1/6
Selected Phase Trajectories:
Serial Mode (33%)
1.00
B
C
0.80
D
0.60
A
f(s)
0.40
A=-750
B=-300
C= 750
D=1750
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
f(s-1)
16
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Fig. 4-3 The Serial Type’s actual phase trajectories with the ratio of 1/3
4.2 Early Involvement Type
Further, we take the Early Involvement Type to study its phase trajectories. The
outcomes reveal that as the manufacturer inputs one-six (Fig. 4-4) and one-third of
allocated resource ratio (Fig. 4-5) into the advanced phase to accelerate the NPD
process, compared with former type, worse system’s performance will be improved,
not dramatically decline. With the different pulse size from –750 to 1750, all
trajectories slowly recover the stable equilibrium at approximately f(s)=0.82.
Selected Phase Trajectories:
Early Start in the Dark (17%)
1
A
B
0.8
C
D
0.6
f(s)
0.4
A=-750
B=-300
C= 750
D=1750
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
f(s-1)
Fig. 4-4 The Early Start in the Dark Type’s actual phase trajectories with the ratio of
1/6
17
Selected Phase Trajectories:
Early Start in the Dark (33%)
1.00
B
A
0.80
D
C
0.60
f(s)
0.40
A=-750
B=-300
C= 750
D=1750
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
f(s-1)
Fig. 4-5 The Early Start in the Dark Type’s actual phase trajectories with the ratio of
1/3
4.3 Early Involvement Type
In the Early Involvement Type, in order to early involve the NPD process, the
supplier increases one-six of engineers and one-three of engineers to promote
communication between the manufacturer and the supplier. Fig. 4-6 and Fig. 4-7
display that with the increased engineer, the system will retrieve the stable
equilibrium quickly, approximately at f(s)=0.82, under different pulses.
18
Selected Phase Trajectories:
Early Involvement Mode (17%)
C
1.00
A
0.80
B
D
0.60
f(s)
0.40
A=-750
B=-300
C=750
D=1750
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
f(s-1)
Fig. 4-6 The Early Involvement Type’s actual phase trajectories with the ratio of 1/6
Selected Phase Trajectories:
Early Involvement Mode (33% )
C
1.00
D
0.80
C
A
0.60
f(s)
0.40
A=-750
B=-300
C=750
D=1750
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
f(s-1)
Fig. 4-7 The Early Involvement Type’s actual phase trajectories with the ratio of 1/3
4.4 Integrated Problem Solving Type
In the Integrated Problem Solving Type, case 1 means that the manufacturer
increases one-three of allocated resource ratio into the advanced phase and the
19
supplier adds one-six of engineer in the NPD process (Fig. 4-8); case 2 means that the
manufacturer increases one-two of allocated resource ratio into the advanced phase
and the supplier adds one-three of engineer in the NPD process (Fig. 4-9). The results
of simulation of case 1 and case 2 show that when both the manufacturer and the
supplier input efforts in the NPD process, the system promptly returns to the stable
equilibrium approximately at f(s)=0.82 in short time regardless of any shock from
pulse size. Moreover, we get information from Fig. 4-8 to Fig. 4-9 that the more
resource inputs, the better the system’s performance.
Selected Phase Trajectories:
Integrated Problem Solving Mode (33%)
A
1
B
0.8
C
0.6
D
f(s)
0.4
A=-750
B=-300
C=750
D=1750
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
f(s-1)
Fig. 4-8 The Integrated Problem Solving Type’s actual phase trajectories with the ratio
of 1/3
20
Selected Phase Trajectories:
Integrated Problem Solving Mode (50%)
1.00
C
A
0.80
B
0.60
D
f(s)
0.40
A=-750
B=-300
C=750
D=175
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
f(s-1)
Fig. 4-9 The Integrated Problem Solving Type’s actual phase trajectories with the ratio
of 1/2
4.5 Discussion
As we study above regarding the impacts of pulse inputs under different
manufacturer-supplier relationship, the results of the analysis can be summarized as
follows: In the Serial Type, there is no communication and any cooperation between
both parties, therefore, to meet the requirement of time-to-market, the manufacturer
would increase allocated resource ratio in the current phase. However, no matter how
many allocated resource ratio the manufacturer puts in the current phase and no
matter what pulse disturbs, the system’s performance is not good, and the trajectories
return to the equilibrium slowly. In the Early Start in the Dark Type, the manufacturer
understands the pressure of deadline faced by the supplier, thus the manufacturer
increases allocated resource ratio into the advanced phase. Since the design is still
dominated by the manufacturer, the gap between the design and actual product exists.
Although system’s performance would be better, compared with the Serial Type, all
trajectories are not instant to recover the stable point under different pulse size
21
from –750 to 1750. In the Early Involvement Type, the supplier increases engineers to
improve communication about the NPD between both parties. Communication makes
the supplier have a much better understanding of the design and use information to
engage in product development. In the Integrated Problem Solving Type, to accelerate
communication and hold timing of involvement, the manufacturer and the supplier
would input resource in the NPD process. Analyzing the results of simulation we find
that the more allocated resource ratio the manufacturer increases and the more
engineers the supplier adds, the faster the system reaches a steady-state equilibrium. It
is important to note, as there is close manufacturer-supplier relationship, the impacts
of a variety of pulse are smaller.
To sum up, as environment changes like different pulse disturbance, the high
level of supplier involvement would lead to better system’s performance and the
system is apt to recover a stable state.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This study has explored that under different impacts of pulses, how the system
trajectories vary and which type of manufacturer-supplier relationship is better. The
most important finding of this research is that when facing rapidly changing
environment, tightly linked and integrated inter-firm relationships in the NPD make
the enterprise quick response with regard to fluctuant impacts, allowing it to better
compete in the evolving market. The results of this paper has showed that (i) In the
Serial Type, the manufacturer has no contact with the supplier so that all system
trajectories are not easy to return to the stable state regardless of large or small pulse;
(ii) In the Early Start in the Dark Type, compared with the Serial Type, the supplier
anticipates to early involve in the NPD due to the pressure of a deadline, so increased
resource inputted in the advanced phase by the supplier make the system slowly
recover the mode as the firm confronts the impacts of different pulses; (iii) In the
22
Early
Involvement
Type,
the
supplier
increases
engineers
to
accelerate
communication concerning the NPD, which promote all system trajectories quick
retrieve the state point; (iv) In the Integrated Problem Solving Type, close
manufacturer-supplier relationship refers to the high level of supplier involvement.
Inputs from both parties make the system immediately return to a steady-state
equilibrium.
This article mainly explains the influences of manufacturer-supplier relationship
on the NPD under different impacts of pulses. However, one prominent theme is to
integrate not only external actors, but also internal functions in the NPD for effective
product and process development, such as the useful way: heavyweight team, a form
of cooperative structure proposed by Clark and Wheelwright (1992). Therefore, future
researchers could take network collaboration concept to do study concerning across
functions and across firms simultaneously. Besides, current status of the hi-tech
industry is similar to the context of this paper. Thus not to be limited to abstract
theoretical analysis, we encourage followers to proceed empirical work in relevant
industries, for instance Semiconductor industry, Flat Panel Display industry,
Nanotechnology industry and so forth.
REFERENCE
Bonaccorsi, A. & Lippaini, A. 1994. Strategic partnerships in new product
development: An Italian case study.
Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 11, 134-145.
Clark, K. B. & Wheelwright, S. C. 1992. Organizing and Leading Heavyweight
Development Teams. California Management Review, 34(4), 9-28.
Dosi, G. 1988. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation.
Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120-1171.
Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L., Petersen, K. J. & Monczka, R. M. 1999. Involving
23
suppliers in new product development. California Management Review, 42(1),
59-82.
LaBahn, D. W. & Krapfel, R. 2000. Early supplier involvement in customer new
product development: A contingency model of component supplier intentions
Journal of Business Research, 47(3), 173-190.
Liker, J. K., Kamath, R. R., Watsi, S. N. & Nagamachi, M. 1996. Supplier
involvement in automotive component design: Are there really large US Japan
differences. Research Policy, 25(1), 59-89.
Liker, J. K. & Fleischer, M. 1992. Organizational Context Barriers to DFM in Large
US Corporations, in: G. Susman and J. Dean, eds., Integrating design and
manufacturing for competitive advantage (Oxford University Press, New York).
McIvor, R., Humphreys, P. & Cadden, T. 2006. Supplier involvement in product
development in the electronics industry: A case study,” Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 23, 374–397.
Kamath, R. R. & Liker, J. K. 1994. A second look at Japanese product development.
Harvard Business Review, 72(6), 154-170.
Kaufman, A., Wood, C. H. & Theyel, G. 2000. Collaboration and technology linkage:
A strategic supplier typology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(6), 649-663.
Krafcik, J. F. 1988. Triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management
Review, 30(1), 41-52.
Repenning, N. P. 2000. A dynamic model of resource allocation in multi-project
research and development systems. System Dynamics Review, 16(3), 173-212.
Sahal, D. 1985. Technological guideposts and innovation avenues. Research Policy,
14 (2), 67-82.
Stalk, G. 1999. Time-the next source of competitive advantage. Harvard Business
Review, July/August, 41-51.
24
Wasti, S. N. & Liker, J. K. 1997. Risky business or competitive power: Supplier
involvement in Japanese product design. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 14, 337-355.
Van De Ven, A. H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation.
Management Science, 32(5), 590-607.
Wheelwright, S. C. & Clark, K. B. 1992. Accelerating the design-build-test cycle for
effective product development. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 32-46.
Wynstra, F & Pierick, E. T. 2000. Managing supplier involvement in new product
development: A portfolio approach. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 6, 49-57.
Wynstra, F., Weele, A. V. & Weggemann, M. 2001. Managing supplier involvement in
product development: Three critical issues. European Management Journal,
19(2), 157-167.
25