Note: How Does Product Proliferation Affect Responsiveness?

Gupta, Diwakar; Srinivasan, Mandyam M.

doi:10.1287/mnsc.44.7.1017

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Product variety has been handled in the operations literature almost exclusively from a supply-side perspective (Ramdas 2003, Ho andTang 1998), often focusing on how increased product variety affects manufacturing or supply chain performance (e.g., Thonemann and Bradley 2002, Randall and Ulrich 2001, Fisher and Ittner 1999, Gupta and Srinivasan 1998, MacDuffie et al 1996. A few exceptions recognize both demand and supply sides in exploring optimal assortment to balance market gains and inventory costs due to variety (e.g., Gaur andHonhon 2006, van Ryzin andMahajan 1999); interaction of product line, pricing, and make-to-order/maketo-stock decisions (Dobson and Yano 2002); the link between conformance/performance quality and product strategy (Karmarkar and Pitbladdo 1997); marketing operations impact of higher variety and the resulting coordination issues (e.g., Netessine and Taylor 2007, Yunes et al 2007, Cattani et al 2003, de Groote 1994, Kekre and Srinivasan 1990.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass Customization vs. Mass Production: Variety and Price Competition

Alptekinoğlu

Corbett

2008

M&SOM

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study competition between two multiproduct firms with distinct production technologies in a market where customers have heterogeneous preferences on a single taste attribute. The mass customizer (MC) has a perfectly flexible production technology and thus can offer any variety within a product space, represented by Hotelling's linear city. The mass producer (MP) has a more focused production technology and therefore offers a finite set of products in the same space. The MP can invest in more flexible technology, which reduces its cost of variety and hence allows it to offer a larger set of products; in the extreme, the MP can emulate the MC's technology and offer infinite variety. The firms simultaneously decide whether to enter the market, and the MP chooses its degree of product-mix flexibility on entry. Next, the MP designs its product line--i.e., the number and position of its products--the MC's perfectly flexible technology makes this unnecessary. Finally, both firms simultaneously set prices. We analyze the subgame-perfect Nash equilibrium in this three-stage game, allowing firm-specific fixed and variable costs that together characterize their production technology. We find that an MP facing competition from an MC offers lower product variety than an MP monopolist to reduce the intensity of price competition. We also find that the MP can survive this competition, even if it has higher fixed cost of production technology, higher marginal cost of production, or both.product variety management, mass customization, operations-marketing interface, discrete consumer choice, competitive product strategy, pricing

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass Customization vs. Mass Production: Variety and Price Competition

Alptekinoğlu

Corbett

2008

M&SOM

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thonemann and Bradley 2002, Randall and Ulrich 2001, Fisher and Ittner 1999, Gupta and Srinivasan 1998, MacDuffie et al 1996. A few exceptions recognize both demand and supply sides in exploring optimal assortment to balance market gains and inventory costs due to variety (Gaur andHonhon 2004, van Ryzin andMahajan 1999); interaction of product line, pricing and maketo-order / make-to-stock decisions (Dobson and Yano 2002); link between conformance / performance quality and product strategy (Karmarkar and Pitbladdo 1997); marketingoperations impact of higher variety and the resulting coordination issues (Netessine and Taylor 2005;Yunes et al 2004;Cattani, Dahan and Schmidt 2003;De Groote 1994;Kekre and Srinivasan 1990).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass Customization Versus Mass Production: Variety and Price Competition

Alptekinoğlu

Corbett

2005

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study competition between two multi-product firms with distinct production technologies in a market where customers have heterogeneous preferences on a single taste attribute. The mass customizer (MC) has a perfectly flexible production technology, thus can offer any variety within a product space, represented by Hotelling's (1929) linear city.The mass producer (MP) has a more focused production technology, and therefore, it offers a finite set of products in the same space. MP can invest in more flexible technology, which reduces its cost of variety and hence allows it to offer a larger set of products; in the extreme, MP can emulate MC's technology and offer infinite variety. The firms simultaneously decide whether to enter the market, and MP chooses its degree of product-mix flexibility upon entry. Next, MP designs its product line, i.e., the number and position of its products; MC's perfectly flexible technology makes this unnecessary. Finally, both firms simultaneously set prices. We analyze the sub-game perfect Nash equilibrium in this three-stage game, allowing firm-specific fixed and variable costs that together characterize their production technology.We find that an MP facing competition from an MC offers lower product variety compared to an MP monopolist, in order to reduce the intensity of price competition. We also find that MP can survive this competition even if it has higher fixed cost of production technology or higher marginal cost of production or both.

show abstract

“…With an increase in variety, assembly line balancing becomes problematic, and component planning and production scheduling become more complex [4]. Focusing on the MTO environment and using queuing models, conditions were created in which an increase in product variety improves both individual product performance and system performance [8]. Studies of how lean manufacturing can be applied to LVHV segments have been carried out [9].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Approach to Improving Customer on-Time Delivery Against the Original Promise Date

Ramachandran

Neelakrishnan

2017

SAJIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the main challenges that a low-volume high-variety (LVHV) product manufacturing industry faces is to improve customer ontime delivery (OTD) against the original promised date (OPD) in a make-to-order (MTO) situation. A systematic root-cause analysis is carried out in the LVHV industry to find the true root cause and eliminate it. This paper proposes a methodology that incorporates the lean thinking methodology, a lean live tracking (LLT) tool, and cross-functional team (CFT) approaches to improve OTD. These are tested using real-time data from an industrial valve manufacturing LVHV firm, resulting in an average OTD improvement from 30 percent to 90 percent in about eight months. OPSOMMINGEen van die hoofuitdagings waarmee ŉ lae volume, hoë variëteit produkvervaardigingsindustrie gekonfronteer word, is om betydse aflewering te verbeter in ŉ maak-op-bestelling situasie. ŉ Sistemiese worteloorsaakanalise is van stapel gestuur in dié industrie om die ware oorsaak op te spoor en te elimineer. Hierdie artikel fokus op ŉ metodologie wat van lenige denkmetodologie, regstreekse lenige monitering, en oorkruis funksionele spanbenaderings gebruik maak om betyds aflewering te verbeter. Dit word getoets aan die hand van regstreekse data van ŉ industriële klepvervaardiger en die resultate toon ŉ gemiddelde verbetering wat wissel tussen 30 en 90 persent gedurende ŉ periode van agt maande. INTRODUCTIONLean manufacturing (LM) is a proven manufacturing philosophy that shortens the time between the customer's order and the product-build-to-shipment by eliminating sources of waste. The current marketplace needs optimised design-for-use, frequent design changes, and smaller production runs of greater variety, all with fluctuating demands. These demands make the manufacture of lowvolume high-variety (LVHV) products a complex process. The main road blocks to implementing LM in such industries are a lack of understanding of the correct lean tools, and people's attitudes [16]. Customer responsiveness and product quality are improved by adapting LM and lean thinking. Ontime delivery (OTD) is one of the top industrial metrics that needs to be met by the firm's original promised date (OPD) to the customer. To improve OTD, on-time receipt (OTR) of material from suppliers and subcontractors is required. To achieve any realistic and sustained improvement in OTD performance, all the functional units and associated systems must be considered. Applying lean techniques in the office is more critical than on the shop floor to eliminate waste and to achieve the targeted customer response [17]. Realising the importance of such an approach, this study proposes a solution to improve OTD performance. The system and the people involved in the planning and manufacturing for the control and maintenance cycles of LVHV situations are integrated with a user interface to support CFT operations through basic and transactional data. The detailed research analysis, the performance of internal operations, and the methods of component sourcing strate...

show abstract

Note: How Does Product Proliferation Affect Responsiveness?

Cited by 27 publications

References 2 publications

Mass Customization vs. Mass Production: Variety and Price Competition

Mass Customization vs. Mass Production: Variety and Price Competition

Mass Customization Versus Mass Production: Variety and Price Competition

An Approach to Improving Customer on-Time Delivery Against the Original Promise Date

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About