Transcript Document 7673244

Issues include:
• Relating product and
Performance
objectives
Quality
process development
• Managing product/service
Speed
development as a process
Dependability
• Meeting market
requirements for new
products and services
Flexibility
Cost
• Managing product/service
development resources
Capacity
Supply
Process
Network Technology
Development
and Organization
(Product and service
development and
improvement)
Decision areas
Issues covered in this chapter
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Market Competitiveness
Resource Usage
Rapid
technology
change
Means of
building
capabilities
Increased
competitiveness
Shortened
life-cycles
OPERATIONS
RESOURCES
Product and
service
development
MARKET
REQUIREMENTS
Involves all
parts of the
business
Fragmented
markets
The increasing strategic importance of product and
service development
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Development
of the
Product
Development
of the
Process
In manufacturing operations
overlapping the activities of
product and process
development is beneficial
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Development
of the
Service
Development
of the
Process
In most service operations
the overlap between service
and process development is
implicit in the nature of
service
Products and services
should be developed in
such a way that they can be
created effectively
Developing the
Product or
Service
Processes should be
developed in such a way that
they can create all products
and services which the
operation is likely to
introduce
Developing the
Process which
Produces the
Product or
Service
Decisions taken during the development of the product or service will
have an impact on the decisions taken during the development of the
process which produces the product or service or vice versa
The development of products/services and processes are interrelated and
should be treated together
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
TRANSFORMED
RESOURCES
Technical information
Market information
Time information
INPUTS
THE
DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY
OUPUT
Test and design
equipment
Design and technical
staff
TRANSFORMING
RESOURCES
Product/service development is itself a process
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
FINISHED
DESIGNS
Introducing ……… the Ballpoint Pen
1939 Hungarian brothers Ladislao and Georg Biro file patent and in 1944
produce first commercial ballpoint pen.
Eversharp buy US distribution rights.
Before first shipment, Milton Reynolds’ copy product on sale in US (also
retractable).
Legal wrangles unearth Biro brothers’ 1939 patent preceded 50 years
earlier!
Reynold enjoyed early success but quality problems undermine market
image.
Both Eversharp and Reynolds go bust.
Parker introduce reengineered product to overcome some reliability
problems.
Parker reasonably successful with mid-price product.
French company Bic make further product modifications and overcome
mass production problems.
Bic make the product ‘consumer disposable’ and change the pen market.
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Product/service and process development - the Ballpoint pen
Biro
Brothers
Degree of Process Change
New Core
Process
Reynolds
Next
Generation
Process
Research and
Advanced
Development
Eversharp
Bic
Redesigned
Processes
Parker
Minor
Modifications
Add-ons and
Enhancements
Extension of
Product/Service
Range
Next Generation
Product/Service
New Core
Product/Service
Degree of Product/Service Change
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Research
and
advanced
development
Degree of process change
‘Pioneer’
Process
Internet
banking
service
Developments
to Process
Call-center
banking
service
Extension
to
Processes
Branch
banking
service
Modifications
to Process
Modification to
Extension to
Development of
‘Pioneer’
product/service product/service product/service product/service
Degree of product/service change
The link between product/service and process development can be
closer in service industries
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Degree of Process Change
Research
and
Advanced
Development
New Core
Process
Volvo
1970s
and
80s
Next
Generation
Process
Boundary
for service
operations
Callcenter
banking
service
Redesigned
Processes
Minor
Modifications
Internet
banking
service
Branch
banking
service
Add-ons and
Enhancements
Extension of
Product/Service
Range
Boundary for
manufacturing
operations
The
‘Mini’
1960
Next Generation
Product/Service
New Core
Product/Service
Degree of Product/Service Change
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Resource Usage
Speed - Fast
development from
concept to launch
Operations strategy for
the product and service
development operations
Dependability Designs delivered to
schedule
Flexibility - Designs
which include latest
ideas
Cost - Designs produced
without consuming
excessive cost
Capacity Amount of
development
resource
matched to
demand over
time
Supply Network
- Relationships
with outside
sources of
development
knowledge
Process
Technology Provision of
design
technology
(CAD), expert
systems, etc.
Decision areas
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Development and
Organization Organization of
development
resources and
improvement
strategy.
Market
Competitiveness
Performance Objectives
Quality - Error free
designs which fulfil
market requirements
Concept generation
Concept screening
Preliminary design
Design evaluation and improvement
Prototyping and final design
Developing the operations process
A typical ‘stage model’ of the product and
service development process
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Reliable/resilient
1
Competitive score
2
3
4
5
9
B
A
10
AB
X
Fast
7
B
X
A
Responsive
4
B
X
Secure
8
X
A
B
Remote links
6
A X
Connectivity
5
Scalability
2
Accurate
A
98
48
Relative importance
1st
7th 4th 5th 8th 2nd 5th 3rd
Technical difficulty
4
3
72
2
54
2
9
1
90
5
54
4
3
A
X
B
78
1 = easy, 5 = difficult
A Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Matrix
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
X
B
B
A
Absolute importance
5 = Maximum
B = Competitor B
X = Us
1 = Minimum
Firewalls
Interfaces
Intranet
compatibility
Memory
requirement
Database
Password x2
R-3 conformt.
WHATs
Availability
9
3
1
Importance to
customer
WHATs vs HOWs
Strong relationship
Medium relationship
Weak relationship
HOWs
A = Competitor A
HOWs vs HOWs
Strong positive
Positive
Negative
Strong negative
X
Design
characteristics
Relationship
matrix
Component
deployment
Tradeoffs
Process
characteristics
Relationship
matrix
Process
planning
QFD matrices can be linked with the
‘hows’ of one matrix forming the ‘what’
of the next
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Tradeoffs
Process
characteristics
‘House of
quality’
Component
characteristics
Component
characteristics
Relationship
matrix
Tradeoffs
Design
characteristics
Customer
requirements
Tradeoffs
Individual
activities
Relationship
matrix
Activity
planning
Product/service development involves progressively
reducing the number of possibilities until the final design is
reached
Choice and
evaluation
"Screens"
Large Number of
Design options
CONCEPT
Uncertainty
Regarding the
Final Design
TIME
One Design
FINAL DESIGN
SPECIFICATION
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Certainty
Regarding
the Final
Design
Many concepts enter the
development process
One ‘best’
design emerges
(a)
Customer’s
original
specification
One recycle
(sometimes)
Discussions
with customer
Development of
agreed design
(b)
Expansion
of original
idea
Narrowing of
options for
customer
Mutually
agreed
development
specification
(a) The idealised development funnel; (b) one company development funnel
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Cash
Sales Revenue
Cumulative
cash flow
Sales revenue
(delayed launch)
Cumulative cash flow
(delayed launch)
Time
Delay in
launch
Delay in breakeven
Slow and/or delayed development times, which can be the result of
quality or flexibility failure, will increase costs and can reduce revenue
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Confirmed development need
only in the short-term
Reluctant to invest in
long-term development
resources
Lose business
opportunities
So in the short-term
the project runs into
problems
The ‘vicious cycle’ of under resourcing
development capacity
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
In-house
design
capability
Close,
but loose
Outsourced
design
capability
Control of resource
Familiarity
Strong
Distant, through
contracts
Weak in the short-term,
potentially
stronger in the long-term
Accessibility
High
Low/limited
Cost
Fixed
Risk of knowledge leakage
Small
The in-house-outsourced continuum
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Variable
Great
(Potentially)
Supplier located
(employee of customer)
RESIDENT CUSTOMER
ENGINEER
Largely
concerned
Focus – helping suppliers to
with product
develop their products at
development
supplier’s sites, to meet
customer needs
SUPPLIER DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEER
Largely
concerned Focus – helping suppliers at their
site to improve
with process
production methods
development
Customer located
(employee of supplier)
GUEST DESIGN
ENGINEER
Focus – helping the product
design effort at the
customer’s site by
bringing supplier product
and process knowledge
RESIDENT PRODUCTION
ENGINEER
Focus – helping the manufacture
of customer’s products
through knowledge of,
and changes in, supplier
products
A broad typology of guest engineers
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Functional matrix
(Lightweight project managers)
Function Function Function
A
B
C
Project
1
Functional organization
Function Function Function
A
B
C
Function
D
Function
D
Project
2
Project
3
Balanced matrix
INCREASING PROJECT
ORIENTATION
Function Function Function
A
B
C
Project
1
Project
2
Project
1
Project
3
Project
2
Project
3
Project team
(‘Tiger’ teams)
Function Function Function
A
B
C
Project
1
Project
2
Organizational structures for
product/service development
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Project
3
Project matrix
(Heavyweight project managers)
Function
D
Function
D
Performance Objectives
Safety
No significant
relationship.
Is the company
willing to subcontract
any responsibility for
safety?
Pilot plant may
enable potential
hazard to be
detected.
Dedicated team
may help reinforce
safety objective.
No significant
relationship.
Strict quality
standards need to
be communicated to
any subcontractor.
Pilot plant may
enable better quality
learning.
Dedicated team may
help to reinforce
quality objective.
Need to have
development capacity
to respond quickly to
accelerated
development needs.
Does subcontractor
development imply
reduced flexibility?
Pilot plant would be
dedicated so
increase flexibility,
but may have scaleup problems.
Dedicated team likely
to be more flexible if
all necessary skills
are represented in it.
Very significant, the
larger the
development team
the higher the cost
of development.
Subcontracting
development to
specialists may
reduce total
development cost.
Pilot plant is likely to
be more expensive
that using partners’
capacity.
Dedicated team likely
to be more expensive,
functional organisation
usually gives higher
utilisation of staff.
** *
Quality
** *
Flexibility
** *
Cost
*
Capacity
Supply Network
Size of team?
Subcontract any
development?
Process
Technology
Development and
organisation
Build pilot plant?
Dedicated team?
Decision areas
Operations strategy matrix for Project Orlando
© Nigel Slack and Michael Lewis 2003
Market Competitiveness
Resource Usage