Triadic perspective on customization and supplier interaction in customer-driven manufacturing

Abstract

Customization and customer-driven manufacturing are both explicitly based on the focal actor's interaction with the customer actor. The impact of these aspects on the internal operations of the focal actor is relatively well known compared to the limited number of studies performed on the impact on the focal actor's supplier. The purpose here is therefore to investigate how the concept of customization complements the concept of customer-driven and how customer requirements affect interaction between a supplier and the supplier's supplier in a triad. Frameworks for different perspectives are developed where match and mismatch between the actors on the perception of flow driver and flow differentiation is highlighted. The frameworks are then applied on a case company to illustrate application.

A methodology for the decentralised design and production of additive manufactured spare parts

“…The five phases model is illustrated in Figure 4, following the Business Process Modelling and Notation (BPMN) language (Fischer et al 2012). Since this methodology is suited for the military use case, the end-user is the same actor as the manufacturer and supplier, but internally, the actor requesting the spare (also referred as source) can be considered the customer as in the case of customer-driven manufacturing (Wikner and Bäckstrand 2018). 3.1.1.1.…”

Editorial

“…With eight further papers having reached more than 5,000 downloads and a further 48 having passed 1,000 downloads. This year also saw the publication of the first invited paper (Wikner & Bäckstrand, 2018). I am expecting that we will expand this with invited papers on several other interesting and central topics for Production and Manufacturing in 2019 and beyond.…”

An ontology for flow thinking based on decoupling points – unravelling a control logic for lean thinking

“…However, most of the constructs have been applied previously in various industrial applications, thereby proving their empirical relevance in different contexts (see, e.g. Bäckstrand, 2012;Wikner & Bäckstrand, 2018;Wikner & Noroozi, 2016;Yang, Yang, & Williams, 2010). The intention here is thus not to develop entirely new constructs but to provide an integrated foundation for previously developed constructs.…”

“…This discontinuitygoing from some level of standardization to an individualized offeringis related to the customer adaptation decoupling point (CADP). In relation to the CADP, at the lower part of Figure 11, the red line represents individualization and green line represents standardization (Wikner & Bäckstrand, 2018). Individualization could also be offered upstream of the CADP if orders are repetitive.…”

“…Parts of the methodology has been validated through cases (see, e.g. Bäckstrand, 2012;Wikner & Bäckstrand, 2018;Wikner, Yang, Yang, & Williams, 2017) but with this developed ontology a more holistic approach to investing the applicability through case studies could provide substantial additional insights.…”