No abstract

No abstract

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

No abstract

Modularity in product design has been hailed as a way to speed new product development (NPD), to reduce NPD cost, and to enhance customization possibilities for consumers. Modularity in process design may speed new product manufacturing setup times, reduce costs, and enhance the profitability of the lower volumes that customization often entails. However, empirical evidence is scarce that either product or process modularity-individually, jointly, or sequentially-actually produce these or other proposed benefits (e.g., performance growth). This study builds on general modular systems theory (GMST) by examining the theoretical relationship between product and process modularity and the effects of each on firm growth performance. Using structural equation modeling, partial versus complete mediation by manufacturing agility is also scrutinized. In one pair of models, product modularity and process modularity are separate direct antecedents to manufacturing agility, which is modeled to affect firm growth performance; in a second pair of models, product and process modularity are related antecedents to manufacturing agility, with product modularity preceding process modularity. Results from the best-fitting model show that product modularity directly and positively affects process modularity, manufacturing agility, and firm growth performance. Process modularity was unrelated to manufacturing agility, and neither process modularity nor manufacturing agility predicted growth performance. Consistent with GMST, the study provides empirical evidence of the power of one element of a modular system to orchestrate a fit between a firm's product and manufacturing strategies and to directly drive system performance. Thus, modularity in product design is revealed as the key to understanding GMST effects concerning how changes in one system generate changes in other systems.

Business units in six Fortune 500 companies were studied to develop better understanding regarding drivers of product portfolio complexity and the means to manage them. Our research focuses on identifying important competencies for managing product portfolio complexity and on the development of appropriate theoretical explanations. We found three important competencies: product/technology portfolio strategy, organization and governance regarding complexity decisions, and product design and decision support systems. We explicate these competencies using a socio-technical systems theoretical perspective. Our findings provide the basis for a model describing the impact of complexity and complexity management on business unit profitability. #

No abstract

Lastly, it may be as important to carefully craft communication campaigns aimed at employees as those aimed at customers since the former appear to lead to more effective integration with customers, which elsewhere has been linked to improved financial and market performance.3