模块化和外部采办：一个关于在美国汽车驾驶室行业中一系列的研究外文文献翻译、中英文翻译
收藏
资源目录
压缩包内文档预览：
编号：83067764
类型：共享资源
大小：104.48KB
格式：ZIP
上传时间：2020-06-01
上传人：QQ14****9609
认证信息
个人认证
郭**（实名认证）
陕西
IP属地：陕西
12
积分
- 关 键 词：
-
模块化
外部
采办
一个
关于
美国
汽车
驾驶室
行业
一系列
研究
外文
文献
翻译
中英文
- 资源描述：
-
模块化和外部采办：一个关于在美国汽车驾驶室行业中一系列的研究外文文献翻译、中英文翻译,模块化,外部,采办,一个,关于,美国,汽车,驾驶室,行业,一系列,研究,外文,文献,翻译,中英文
- 内容简介：
-
MODULARITY AND OUTSOURCING: A STUDY OF GENERATIONAL SEQUENCES IN THE U.S. AUTOMOTIVE COCKPIT INDUSTRY SEBASTIAN K. FIXSON Industrial & Operations Engineering University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 E-mail: YOUNG RO University of Michigan-Dearborn JEFFREY K. LIKER University of Michigan INTRODUCTION Two major recent trends in industries that produce complex engineered products have been the movements towards the use of modular product architectures, and towards new approaches in supply chain management. In the past, both trends, modularity and outsourcing, were investigated predominantly in separate research communities. Modularity has been promoted as a design principle for software and hardware products in the engineering community, e.g., (Kusiak, 1999; Pahl & Beitz, 1996; van der Linden & Mueller, 1995) and outsourcing has been discussed in economics, management, and strategy communities ever since Coase asked more than sixty years ago: why do firms exist? (Coase, 1937). More recently, however, a research stream has emerged that links these two topics together. Researchers have looked into the performance impact of matching product structure and organization structure (Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996) and the rigidities this match can create (Henderson & Clark, 1990). The success of the business model of computer maker Dell has been associated with the modular computer architecture and novel forms of just-in-time supply chain management (Kraemer & Dedrick, 2001), and IBMs modularization of the computer architecture in the 1960s has been found to have set the precondition for the emergence and subsequent dramatic expansion of the personal computer industry (Baldwin & Clark, 2000). This research stream has produced important insights in the consequences of a match - or mismatch - between certain forms of product structures and certain forms of organization structures for a companys competitive position. The next step then is to build a more general understanding of the direction of causality between these two domains. In other words, do products design organizations, or do organizations design products? Some argue that only real data can answer this question: It is then an empirical question to gauge which causal direction has been stronger over a particular period of time. (Sako, 2004:15) Focusing on the product development and manufacturing of automotive cockpits in North America, this paper attempts to shed some light on this question. In this study, we find that the reality is much messier than most simple models suggest. Not only do we find interactions of various degrees for different sub-processes, we also identify different directions of causality. In addition, it seems that there are powerful external forces that drive both variables, sometimes simultaneously. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2004 TIM: D1 BACKGROUND AND FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT The topics modularity and outsourcing have been individually discussed extensively in their respective research areas. Modularity has received widespread attention across various disciplines (Schilling, 2003). In most disciplines, systems are called modular if they exhibit relatively stronger ties (i.e., interfaces) within their subunits (i.e., modules), and relatively weaker between them. Within the discipline of designing complex technical products, modularity can be interpreted as a characteristic of a products architecture. A products architecture is the general layout of the components and includes the specification of how these components work together. Choosing a products architecture is a central task in the conceptual design phase during product development (Kamrani & Salhieh, 2002; Ulrich & Eppinger, 2000). The question that underlies the issue of outsourcing, i.e., whether a firm chooses to do work in-house or to give it to a supplier, has also been discussed widely in multiple disciplines under the heading of firm boundaries. A firms boundaries determine the content of work the firm does on the inside relative to what remains outside as well as the number and type of interactions the firm has with its environment. Consequently, researchers in fields ranging from management, (Chandler, 1962; Pisano, 1990) to economics (Holmstrom & Roberts, 1998; Williamson, 1985) have focused on this issue. Our intent with this paper is to focus on the interactions between product architecture and firm boundary. The existing constructs for these interactions in the literature can be broadly clustered into two categories: one that argues for a causal link running from product architecture to firm boundary, another representing the reverse argument, i.e. the attributes of the firms boundary impact the products architectural characteristics. Some authors suggest that both types of effects can occur simultaneously (Fine, 1998; Gulati & Eppinger, 1996). Product Architecture affects Firm Boundary The logic for a causal effect from the product architecture on the location of the firms boundary is as follows. During conceptual product design, designers select a products architecture. In turn, the product architecture - which determines the number and role of components and number and type of interfaces between them - sets constraints and opportunities for the organizational structure to develop and manufacture the product. In other words, design decisions translate into tasks that can either be encapsulated, i.e., they become independent of each other, or they are interdependent with other tasks (Baldwin & Clark, 2003). Over time, the organizational architecture with its internal and external boundaries adjusts to these conditions and mimics the products architecture (Henderson & Clark, 1990; Leonard-Barton, 1992). The industry structure as a whole is then the aggregated outcome of this process. Firm Boundary affects Product Architecture There are several ways in which the location of the firms boundary can affect the products architecture. In a supply chain, the location of firm boundaries determines to a large extent ownership and access to the capabilities available in the supply chain. In response, a firm may decide to design its product such that the products architecture makes it easy to deploy externally available capabilities. The evolutionary perspective provides a theoretical underpinning for this argument. If systems - like organisms - react to demands from their environment to increase their fitness level, they will adjust to external forces. With respect to their product architecture this means that products migrate towards or away from higher levels of modularity driven by external factors (Schilling, 2000). Heterogeneity amplifies the impact of Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2004 TIM: D2 external factors such as supply and demand. For example, if a multitude of suppliers exists that offers a wide variety of technologies, the product architecture will migrate to higher levels of modularity to take advantage of the situation. Since it is more likely that a higher variety exists outside of the firm than inside, this means the location of the firm boundary affects the product architecture choice. Similarly, higher levels of demand heterogeneity often require a variety of sales channels, customer relations, etc. which, in turn, exercise pressure to modularize the product architecture. An Exploratory Framework To help analyze the dynamics between product architecture and firm boundary location we suggest a two-step framework that separates description from evaluation. In the first step, changes in both product architectures and firm boundary location are recorded, i.e., measured at multiple points in time. This requires the development of measures for both constructs that are comparable across time and across firms. While multiple measurements of these constructs help describe the change processes over time, by themselves they do not demonstrate causality (although they might help exclude one type of causality direction). Consequently, the second step includes the search for drivers that could have caused the change. THE CASE OF AUTOMOTIVE COCKPITS IN NORTH AMERICA Research Design Automotive cockpits are a good candidate for our study because they have evolved through various degrees of modularity over the past decade. We call a cockpit the sum of components that includes the instrument panel, instrument cluster, HVAC (Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning), Audio, AC electronic controls, wiring harness, steering wheel/column, airbags, cross-car beam, and some smaller components such as ducts, glove box, bezels/trim components. Our unit of analysis is the individual cockpit development project because it is the level at which firm boundaries are determined anew for every project. Measures. The precise determination of various degrees of modularity has proven very difficult, mostly because multiple product characteristics are often subsumed under the heading modularity and the weight of these individual characteristics is strongly context dependent (Fixson, 2003). To overcome this obstacle, we defined three generations of product architectures, representing three different levels of increasing modularity, albeit specific to the product under investigation. Generation 0 represents the relatively non-modular product architecture that has been used for decades in which the automaker (customer) engineers the product, buys the components, and installs the components individually and sequentially while the automobile travels down the assembly line. Cockpits of generation 1 are designed to be pre-assembled off the main assembly line and installed to the automobile in one piece. The main difference between generation 0 and generation 1 concerns the interfaces between cockpit and vehicle. Generation 2 cockpits contain design changes relative to generation 1 that take advantage of possibilities for parts integration, assembly optimization, etc. The industry as a whole has moved progressively from generation 0 to 1, to 2. Previous research has treated the location of the firm boundary often as an integer decision. For example, the decision to acquire or to license a technology can be interpreted as a decision to locate the firm boundary, e.g., (Schilling & Steensma, 2002). To add a higher level of precision we decided to measure the distribution of the total work. We asked the participants to estimate the fraction of total project work that is delivered by the individual supply chain Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2004 TIM: D3 participants. While the exact percentage values represent less precision than the data seems to provide, it is the trends reflected in the changes across product architecture generations that are relevant. Controls. To ensure comparability across development projects we collected data on a number of control variables such as vehicle type, duration of the development project, fraction of new components, planned production volume, and compensation mechanisms for suppliers R&D efforts. These are not controls in a statistical sense as the sample size is too small for any such statistical adjustment, but they do allow us to consider alternative explanations for the patterns we observe. Data Sample and Collection. We collected data on 18 development projects from five 1. tier suppliers and one OEM. In each company, we collected data on three projects, one from each product architecture generation. Given the sample size, our sample is not representative in a statistical sense, but our data set covers all major suppliers active in the automotive cockpit industry in North America. While our sample is not random data accessibility issues made this impossible we asked the participants to provide us with data on a project typical for each of the three generations. The data were collected through a questionnaire and multiple face-to-face interviews in each company with clarifications in follow-up phone interviews. Data Product Development. Using the distribution of work content as a proxy for the location of firm boundaries in a supply chain, Figure 1 shows how the firm boundary shifts in product development across the three different product architecture generations. - Figure 1 about here - We show the percent of work in each phase by tier level, i.e., the automaker (OEM), its direct suppliers (1. Tier), and their suppliers (2. Tier). While from the OEMs perspective - the overall trend is towards greater outsourcing, this trend is uneven across product architecture generations, i.e., across different levels of modularity, and is uneven across the four sub-processes in product development. While for the processes design and engineering the outsourcing has increased substantially (OEMs contributions have shrunk to 27% and 24%, respectively), the OEMs seem reluctant to outsource much of the concept work. On a generation 2 project, the OEM still conducts, on average, 73% of the concept work. Similarly, the work of the testing and validation phase has not been outsourced as aggressively as for design and engineering. Manufacturing. We also collected work distribution data for two sub-processes of manufacturing: parts fabrication and assembly (Figure 2). - Figure 2 about here - The data show that parts fabrication had been outsourced before the product architecture change was first observed. In generation 0, on average, 1. Tier and 2. Tier suppliers conducted about 50% of the work each. The view on assembly presents a split picture. With respect to cockpit assembly, the majority of the pre-assembly work was outsourced from the OEM to the 1. Tier supplier between generation 0 and generation 1. For cockpits of generations 1 and 2, there is an additional assembly process: to insert the pre-assembled cockpit into the vehicle. In generation 1 projects this work is exclusively conducted by the OEMs. In generation 2 projects, some of the work (17%) has been shifted to 1 tier suppliers. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2004 TIM: D4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Considering change along the two dimensions modularity and outsourcing, three generic paths are possible (Sako & Murray, 1999). In path 1, the OEM first modularizes the product and then outsources it. Path 2 suggests the reverse order: first outsourcing, then modularization. Finally, the third path suggests simultaneous outsourcing and modularization. However, our data show that content and roles of the many individual processes in product development and manufacturing are more complicated. Given our research design with fixed product architecture generations, we use the firm boundary shifts to first describe the individual change sequences. We then present drivers of these changes as reported by our interviewees. For the four phases of the process product development a mixed picture emerges. Both generational changes in product architecture cause the outsourcing of significant fractions of design and engineering work, whereas neither change affects the location of major portions of the concept work. In the words of the above named 3-paths framework, design and engineering follow more of a path 1 model, while concept work does not follow any of the three paths, and testing takes a slow path 1. In fact, to some extent all phases follow rather zig-zag paths of modularization and outsourcing than one of the three cleanly identifiable ones. Several reasons seem to cause these zig-zag paths, and the deviations among them. During the interviews, we were told that major drivers for outsourcing are how the OEMs perceive (a) the strategic value of any particular phase, and (b) the available capability from the suppliers. The wave of mergers and acquisitions among the 1. Tier auto suppliers throughout the 1990s to assemble these capabilities can be explained by the OEMs view of the suppliers lacking sufficient capabilities. With respect to the processes of production, i.e., parts fabrication and assembly, the picture is much clearer. In the above cited framework, for parts fabrication we observe only the latter part of path 2, whereas cockpit assembly follows largely path 1, and cockpit-in-vehicle assembly follows really neither path. In sum, in production, shifts in firm boundary seem to be ahead of changes in product architecture (with the exception of cockpit-in-vehicle assembly). There seem to be two, primarily financial, reasons that can explain these findings. For most of the 1990s the North American automakers were forced to improve their financial measures on Wall Street. Cost and asset reduction were major goals. Cost reduction is a strong driver to outsource labor intensive work, i.e. assembly, to lower wage companies, and asset reduction is a strong driver to outsource capital intensive operations, i.e., parts fabrication. Taken together, the sequences of product architecture changes and outsourcing decisions that our study reports demonstrate that there is not a simple unidirectional effect. Rather, we find that in most cases there is a two way relationship, and the relative strength of the two directions varies across processes and can change over time. The relative strengths of the factors that cause product architecture changes to affect firm boundary locations and vice versa (and, consequently, the direction of their sum) appear to be dependent on (a) idiosyncrasies of the logic of individual processes, i.e., their cost structure, their p
- 温馨提示:
1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明，都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
2: 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等，如果需要附件，请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
3.本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸，网页内容里面会有图纸预览，若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑，并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容，请与我们联系，我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
人人文库网所有资源均是用户自行上传分享，仅供网友学习交流，未经上传用户书面授权，请勿作他用。
川公网安备: 51019002004831号