Extending customer order penetration concepts to engineering designs

Abstract

Purpose-The customer order decoupling point (CODP) concept addresses the issue of customer engagement in the manufacturing process. This has traditionally been applied to material flows, but has more recently been applied to engineering activities. This later subject becomes of particular importance to companies operating in 'engineer-to-order' (ETO) supply chains, where each order is potentially unique. Existing conceptualisations of ETO are too generic for practical purposes, so there is a need to better understand order penetration in the context of engineering activities, especially design. Hence, we address the question 'how do customer penetration concepts apply to engineering design activities?' Methodology-A collaborative form of inquiry is adopted, whereby academics and practitioners cooperated to develop a conceptual framework. Within this overarching research design, a focus group of senior practitioners and multiple case studies principally from complex civil and structural engineering as well as scientific equipment projects are used to explore the framework. Findings-The framework results in a classification of nine potential engineering subclasses, and insight is given into order penetration points, major uncertainties and enablers via the case studies. Focus group findings indicate that different managerial approaches are needed across subclasses. Implications-The findings give insight for companies that engage directly with customers on a one-to-one basis, outlining the extent of customer penetration in engineering activities, associated operational strategies and choices regarding the co-creation of products with customers. Care should be taken in generalising beyond the sectors addressed in the study. Originality-The paper refines the definition of the ETO concept, and gives a more complete understanding of customer penetration concepts. It provides a comprehensive reconceptualization of the ETO category, supported by exploratory empirical research.

Economies of collaboration in build‐to‐model operations

“…The rich literature on manufacturing modes includes engineer-to-order, build-to-order, assemble-to-order, make-tostock, and ship-to-stock (Gosling, Hewlett, & Naim, 2017;Hoekstra & Romme, 1992;Konijnendijk, 1994;Naylor, Naim, & Berry, 1999;Pil & Holweg, 2004), each differing in how the customer order decoupling point separates operations that are scheduled to forecast from those performed in direct response to demand (Olhager, 2003;Rudberg & Wikner, 2004). Stock-based modes of manufacturing are either forecastbased (i.e., producing stock in response to anticipated demand), or yield-based (i.e., stocking everything a resource yields irrespective of demand).…”

Structuring a new product development process portfolio using decoupling thinking

“…Following Wikner and Rudberg's (2005) consideration of the CODP's engineering dimension and Gosling and Naim's (2009) discussion of engineer-to-order supply chains, Gosling, Hewlett, and Naim (2017) introduce an EDP framework for classifying different EDPs. The framework was conceived and developed in the context of complex civil and structural engineering, as well as scientific equipment projects, drawing on the philosophy of engineering concepts (e.g.…”

“…Dekkers 2006). Through an extensive co-operative inquiry, Gosling, Hewlett, and Naim (2017) identify nine engineering subclasses, extending from pure mathematical research (with unclear theoretical principles) to using existing complete and finalized designs for solutions. This framework covers a continuum of nine structures to describe to what extent the activities are CoD, as shown in Figure 1.…”

“…Giesberts and van der Tang 1992;Hoekstra and Romme 1992) but mainly when manufacturing products (Rudberg and Wikner 2004;Wikner et al 2017). However, recent papers have shown how decoupling thinking applies to engineering designs (Gosling, Hewlett, and Naim 2017).…”

“…First, it enriches and advances the understanding of decoupling thinking (e.g. Dekkers 2006;Rudberg and Wikner 2004;Wikner and Rudberg 2005) in the NPD processes of manufacturing companies by applying an engineering decoupling point (EDP) framework (Gosling, Hewlett, and Naim 2017), giving empirical insights in a largely conceptual research area. Second, the decoupling thinking approach developed offers an alternative perspective to the literature relating to co-creation and knowledge integration (e.g.…”