Exploring the capital goods economy: complex product systems in the UK

Acha, Virginia

doi:10.1093/icc/13.3.505

Cited by 78 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Capital goods, often called complex products and systems (CoPS) (Gann and Salter 2000;Hobday 2000), play an important role in today's economy (Acha et al 2004). Many definitions and descriptions of capital goods production have been proposed in the literature.…”

Section: Capital Goods: Characteristics Complexities and Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Veldman

Alblas

2012

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many capital good firms deliver products that are not strictly one-off, but instead share a certain degree of similarity with other deliveries. In the delivery of the product, they aim to balance stability and variety in their product design and processes. The issue of engineering change plays an important in how they manage to do so. Our aim is to gain more understanding into how capital good firms manage engineering change, design variety and process variety, and into the role of the product delivery strategies they thereby use. Product delivery strategies are defined as the type of engineering work that is done independent of an order and the specification freedom the customer has in the remaining part of the design. Based on the within-case and cross-case analysis of two capital good firms several mechanisms for managing engineering change, design variety and process variety are distilled. It was found that there exist different ways of (1) managing generic design information, (2) isolating large engineering changes, (3) managing process variety, (4) designing and executing engineering change processes. Together with different product delivery strategies these mechanisms can be placed within an archetypes framework of engineering change management. On one side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to open product delivery strategies, have some practices in place to investigate design reuse potential, isolate discontinuous engineering changes into the first deliveries of the product, employ 'probe and learn' process management principles in order to allow evolving insights to be accurately executed and have informal engineering change processes. On the other side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to a closed product delivery strategy, focus on prevention of engineering changes based on design standards, need no isolation mechanisms for discontinuous engineering changes, have formal process management practices in place and make use of closed and formal engineering change procedures. The framework should help managers to (1) analyze existing configurations of product delivery strategies, product and process designs and engineering change management and (2) reconfigure any of these elements according to a 'misfit' derived from the framework. Since this is one of the few in-depth empirical studies into engineering change management in the capital good sector, our work adds to the understanding on the various ways in which engineering change can be dealt with.

show abstract

Section: Capital Goods: Characteristics Complexities and Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Veldman

Alblas

2012

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite these potential problems, Acha et al (2004) Acha et al (2004) To what extent does the method of reflections capture the concept of CoPS as conceptualized by Hobday (1998 and2000) and classified by Acha et al (2004)? To answer this question, we identified the products in the HS six-digit level list that correspond to CoPS industries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Product complexity and economic development

Felipe

Kumar

Abdon

et al. 2012

Structural Change and Economic Dynamics

245

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in ABSTRACTWe rank 5,107 products and 124 countries according to the Hidalgo and Hausmann (2009) measures of complexity. We find that: (1) the most complex products are in machinery, chemicals, and metals, while the least complex products are raw materials and commodities, wood, textiles, and agricultural products; (2) the most complex economies in the world are Japan, Germany, and Sweden, and the least complex, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, and Nigeria; (3) the major exporters of the more complex products are the high-income countries, while the major exporters of the less complex products are the low-income countries; and (4) export shares of the more complex products increase with income, while export shares of the less complex products decrease with income. Finally, we relate the measure of product complexity with the concept of Complex Products and Systems, and find a high degree of conformity between them.

show abstract

“…Cette catégorie de produits inclut par exemple les infrastructures de télécom-munication, les ponts, les barrages, les réseaux de distribution électrique, les installations nucléaires, les navires militaires, les sous-marins, les simulateurs de vol, les hélicoptères, les avions civils et militaires, les fusées et les satellites. En d'autres termes, le concept de concurrence par la fiabilité présente des liens étroits avec le programme de recherche développé dans les travaux sur les CoPS (Hobday, 1998 ;Gann et Salter, 2000 ;Nightingale, 2000 ;Acha et al, 2004).…”

Section: V4 Quelques Caractéristiques De Concurrence Par La Fiabilitéunclassified

Le dilemme innovation et fiabilité : analyse comparative des industries militaro-spatiale et de semi-conducteurs

Paulino¹,

Callois²

2009

rei

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Après avoir constaté d’une part que l’industrie militaro-spatiale présente des dynamiques de changement technique plus faibles que celles de l’industrie des semi-conducteurs et d’autre part que ces dynamiques ont eu tendance à ralentir, nous cherchons à comprendre pourquoi deux industries innovantes peuvent avoir des dynamiques de changement technique différentes. Nous portons notre attention sur la situation de l’industrie militaro-spatiale et passons en revue les arguments comme le secret, la structure de marché ou la baisse des budgets pour expliquer les divergences observées. Face à leur caractère insatisfaisant, nous proposons une nouvelle explication en relation avec les théories de l’innovation. Nous considérons que les différences observées peuvent se concevoir comme le résultat de la concurrence par la fiabilité qui prévaut dans l’industrie militaro-spatiale. Le renforcement de la contrainte de fiabilité lors de la fin de la guerre froide explique ensuite le ralentissement des dynamiques.

show abstract

Exploring the capital goods economy: complex product systems in the UK

Cited by 78 publications

References 0 publications

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Product complexity and economic development

Le dilemme innovation et fiabilité : analyse comparative des industries militaro-spatiale et de semi-conducteurs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About